HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 03-05-14 Meeting Agenda AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
March 5, 2014
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting ................................................................ (no tab)
2) January 15, 2014 and February 5, 2014 Minutes ............................................................. (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments ................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP is a prioritized list of capital
projects requested by various County Departments and Agencies. The Plan is created as
an informational component of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Ruddy ....................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Public Facilities and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan – The Planning Commission will
discuss a proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; Public Facilities as a
component of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is a follow up to, and in
support of, the discussion of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the proposed County
Administration Facilities to be located generally in the County’s Urban Development Area
(UDA) or Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The proposed amendment continues
to promote Frederick County government and its effort to provide accessible, effective,
and high quality government services to its citizens, business owners, and community
partners. The proposed amendment would be inserted into the Plan within Chapter VI,
Public Facilities – Creating Community.
Mr. Ruddy ......................................................................................................................... (C)
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
7) Floodplain Overlay District. Discussion on revisions to Part 702 of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance, Floodplain Districts.
Mrs. Perkins ...................................................................................................................... (D)
-2-
8) February 8, 2014, Planning Commission Retreat Summary.
Mr. Lawrence .................................................................................................................... (E)
9) Other
Adjourn
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3044
Minutes of January 15, 2014
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on January 15, 2014.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R.
Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District
Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud
District; William Wiley, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison; and Roderick B. Williams, County
Attorney.
ABSENT: Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning
Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; and Renee’ S. Arlotta, Clerk.
-----------
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made by
Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Oates, and unanimously passed to adopt the agenda
for this evening’s meeting as presented.
-------------
ELECTION OF OFFICERS, MEETING SCHEDULE, AND ADOPTION OF BYLAWS AND
RULES & RESPONSIBILITIES FOR 2014
The Secretary to the Planning Commission, Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, presided over the
election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman for 2014.
Election of June M. Wilmot, Chairman for 2014
Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Chairman for the 2014 calendar year.
The nomination of Ms. June M. Wilmot for Chairman was made by Commissioner Oates
and seconded by Commissioner Crockett.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and
unanimously passed to close nominations for Chairman.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3045
Minutes of January 15, 2014
BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
elect Ms. June M. Wilmot as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the calendar year 2014.
-------------
Election of Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman for 2014
Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Vice Chairman for the 2014 calendar
year.
The nomination of Mr. Roger L. Thomas was made by Commissioner Oates and
seconded by Commissioner Triplett.
Motion was made by Commissioner Crockett, seconded by Commissioner Oates, and
unanimously passed to close the nominations for Vice Chairman.
BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
elect Mr. Roger L. Thomas as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the calendar year 2014.
-----------
Election of Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary for 2014
Chairman Wilmot declared nominations open for Secretary of the Planning Commission.
The nomination of Mr. Eric R. Lawrence was made by Commissioner Thomas and
seconded by Commissioner Triplett.
Motion was made by Commissioner Triplett, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, and
unanimously passed to close the nominations for Secretary.
BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
elect Mr. Eric R. Lawrence as Secretary of the Planning Commission for the calendar year 2014.
-----------
PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS AND ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES FOR 2014
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated the Planning Commission’s Bylaws and the
Roles and Responsibilities were both reviewed by the Commission over the last several months and
modifications were deemed to be appropriate. Mr. Lawrence said the Planning Commission’s Bylaws
and Roles & Responsibilities are ready for the Commission’s consideration and adoption.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3046
Minutes of January 15, 2014
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously adopt the
Planning Commission’s Bylaws and the Roles & Responsibilities for the calendar year of 2014, as
presented.
-------------
MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2014
Planning Commission and Committees
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have their
regular monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. to be held in the
Board of Supervisors’ meeting room in the Frederick County Administration Building. In addition, if
inclement weather prohibits the Wednesday evening meeting, the Commission shall move the meeting to
Thursday evening, which is the day after the regularly-scheduled Wednesday meeting.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission has voted unanimously
for their Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee to meet the second Monday of each month at
7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room; and for the Development Review and Regulations
Committee to meet on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room.
-------------
Committee Assignments for 2014
Regarding committee assignments for the calendar year of 2014, Chairman Wilmot asked
the Planning Commission members to remain in their current committee assignments until she had the
opportunity to communicate with everyone individually and determine if everyone is satisfied with their
particular role.
Chairman Wilmot next announced the following liaisons: Transportation Committee,
Commissioner Oates; Historic Resources Advisory Board, Commissioner Oates; Economic Development
Commission, Commissioner Thomas; Sanitation Authority, Commissioner Unger; Conservation
Easement Authority, Commissioner Triplett; and Winchester Planning Commission, Commissioner
Kenney.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3047
Minutes of January 15, 2014
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the
December 4, 2013 meeting minutes of the Planning Commission were unanimously approved as
presented.
-------------
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Winchester City Planning Commission
Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, William Wiley, reported that last month,
the City Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for replacement antennas on a mobile
tower located on Fairmont Avenue. Mr. Wiley said this month, the Commission will consider a
conditional use permit for an entertainment establishment/ nightclub use at 2832-2834 Valley Avenue.
He said the Commission is also considering a date for their 2014 retreat.
-------------
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 1/13/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported the CPPC continued their evaluation of a land use study for
the McCann-Slaughter properties in the Stephenson area; they also discussed the ongoing Southern
Frederick Area Plan efforts.
-------------
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) – 12/17/13 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported the HRAB discussed a historic plaque application for the
Carr-Brumback-Owens House; they also discussed a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the McCann-
Slaughter properties.
-------------
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any issue not on this evening’s agenda.
No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the Citizen Comments portion of the
meeting.
--------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3048
Minutes of January 15, 2014
SOUTHERN FREDERICK URBAN AREA PLAN
Chairman Wilmot announced the kick-off meeting for the Southern Frederick Urban
Area Plan working groups to be held on Wednesday, January 29, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board of
Supervisors Meeting Room. Chairman Wilmot welcomed any citizen who wished to participate in this
land use study to contact the Frederick County Planning Department at 665-5651 with contact
information. She said the working groups will be studying urban areas and residential development;
business development; transportation; and natural and historic resources and public facilities.
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #06-13 of Karen Garver for a Cottage Occupation/Nail Salon at 114
Lakeside Drive. The property, zoned RP (Residential Performance), is further identified with
P.I.N. 75B-6-A-20A in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action – Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported all the adjoining
properties are zoned RP (Residential Performance) and the land use is residential and open space. Mr.
Cheran stated the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows a nail salon as a cottage occupation in the
RP Zoning District with an approved conditional use permit. The proposed use will take place in the
applicant’s dwelling. He said there will be no employees and the applicant has stated there will be two
customers per day and no more than 20 customers a month. He said the hours of operation will be
Monday through Thursday from 4:30pm to 7:30pm; there will be no signs posted with this conditional
use permit. Mr. Cheran concluded by stating that based upon the limited scale of the proposed use and
evaluation of the property, it appears this use would not have any significant impacts on the adjoining
properties. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Planning Commission find
this use to be appropriate.
Commissioner Thomas inquired if there was a State agency that controlled nail salons or
any review by the Health Department. Commissioner Thomas said even though the applicant has stated
there will be no more than two clients per day, it seemed to be an extremely restrictive number for a
business. He said if the applicant’s business reached the point where there may be three clients per day,
he didn’t want to see the applicant go through the expense and routine of applying for a revised
conditional use permit. Commissioner Thomas thought if there were no other reasons or State regulations
restricting the clients to two per day, the Commission should recommend four clients per day.
Commissioner Kenney asked if retails are allowed in this situation. Mr. Cheran replied if
the retail is associated with the cottage occupation, such as the sale of nail polish, etc., there would not be
an issue.
Ms. Karen Garver, the applicant, came forward to introduce herself and to respond to the
Commission’s inquiry about the number of clients per day. Ms. Garver had no problems with raising the
number of clients per day to four.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3049
Minutes of January 15, 2014
Commissioner Manuel asked the applicant if she was required to be licensed by the State
of Virginia and if the Health Department was involved. Ms. Garver replied yes; she carried a State
esthetician’s license and a State nail technician’s license. Ms. Garver said she has had no contact with the
Health Department. She intended to move her current nail business in Berryville to her home.
Chairman Wilmot asked the applicant if the changes recommended by the Commission
were acceptable. Ms. Garver replied yes.
Chairman Wilmot called for any citizen comments, either in favor or opposition to this
conditional use permit. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Manuel and seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi,
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #06-13 of Karen Garver for a Cottage Occupation/Nail Salon at 114
Lakeside Drive with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. No signage allowed with this Conditional Use Permit.
3. Hours of operation shall be 4:30pm to 7:30pm, Monday through Thursday.
4. No more than four customers per day.
5. No employees permitted, beyond those residing on the premises.
6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn and Marston were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Conditional Use Permit #07-13 of Scott Sweeney for a Cottage Occupation/ Public Garage at 441
Red Oak Road. This property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is further identified by P.I.N. 18-A-22D in
the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action – Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported the adjoining
properties are zoned RA (Rural Areas) and the adjoining land uses are residential. Mr. Cheran stated
public garages without auto body repair are permitted in the RA District with an approved conditional use
permit, provided all repair work takes place entirely within an enclosed structure. He said the proposed
use will be conducted in an existing structure approximately 2,048 square feet in size on a six-acre parcel.
The nearest buildings or dwellings are more than 400 feet from this property. Mr. Cheran said the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3050
Minutes of January 15, 2014
applicant has stated there will be no other employees other than the applicant. Mr. Cheran next read a list
of recommended conditions, should the Planning Commission find this use to be appropriate.
Mr. Scott Sweeney, the applicant, came forward to answer questions from the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Triplett asked Mr. Sweeney if he was comfortable with the condition
restricting the number of customers to three per day. Mr. Sweeney thought it would be preferable to be
permitted at least four or five customers per day, if the business thrived; however, with him being the only
mechanic, he probably will only have one or two customers per day. He was agreeable to the change in
conditions and the staff did not believe there would be a problem with increasing the number of
customers per day.
Commissioner Manuel asked Mr. Sweeney if he was comfortable with Condition #3
which stated there will be no employees. Mr. Sweeney replied that for the present, he was okay with just
himself working the business; however, if the business thrived, it would be nice to have another person to
help out.
Commissioner Dunlap assumed there would be some hazardous materials associated with
the proposed business, such as gasoline and oil. Commissioner Dunlap asked the applicant if he had a
plan for handling and disposal of those materials. Mr. Sweeney replied yes; he said the materials are
placed within five-gallon plastic containers with lids and delivered to someone who uses the materials in
an oil-waste furnace. Mr. Sweeney added that everything will be contained inside and nothing is stored
outside.
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments, either in favor or opposition to the
proposed conditional use permit. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public
comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Triplett stated the proposed business seems to be an acceptable use on this
property. He asked if there would be any issue with increasing the number of allowed employees to one
additional person besides the applicant, considering the applicant has stated he would like to have another
employee at some point in the future, if his business flourished. The staff did not believe there would be a
problem with amending Condition #3 to allow one additional employee.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #07-13 of Scott Sweeney for a Cottage Occupation/ Public Garage at
441 Red Oak Road with the following amended conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and shall not
exceed four (4) square feet in size and five (5) feet in height.
3. Operation limited to the applicant and one (1) additional employee.
4. No more than five (5) customers per day.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3051
Minutes of January 15, 2014
5. The applicant will be limited to repairing only five (5) vehicles on site at anytime.
6. All repair activities shall occur entirely within the enclosed structure.
7. Hours of operation shall be Monday through Saturday 8:00am to 6:00pm; no repair activities will
take place on Sunday.
8. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn and Marston were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discussion of the 2014-2015 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County, Virginia. The
CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County departments and agencies.
The CIP is created as an informational document to assist in the development of Frederick
County’s annual budget. If adopted, the CIP will become a component of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan.
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the 2014-2015 Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP), along with the following item concerning public facilities, both relate to
Frederick County’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ruddy said the CPPC (Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Committee) discussed the CIP in November 2013 and endorsed the CIP as presented this evening. He
said the CPPC also found the CIP to be in conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Ruddy recognized several agency and department representatives who were present
at this evening’s meeting. He introduced Mr. Wayne Lee, Planner with the Frederick County Public
Schools; Mr. Jonathan Turkel, Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department; and Ms. Gloria
Puffinburger, Frederick County Public Works Department.
Mr. Ruddy reported the number of projects within the CIP has increased slightly over last
year; there has been some reorganization of project priorities; and the various projects within the CIP
further reinforces the connection between the CIP and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ruddy pointed out
the three-page table, which lists each of the projects on behalf of their respective agencies. He said the
projects are prioritized by each individual department, based upon their own committees’ or
commissions’ determination of their level of importance. In addition to the table, he noted four maps
which are illustrative examples of where the Capital Improvements fall within Frederick County.
Mr. Ruddy explained the first map identifies general county administration, the library,
and the airport projects. The second map deals with public schools and changes to this map include
properties purchased to facilitate two capital improvements, the fourth high school and the county middle
school, adjacent to the Gainesboro Elementary School. He said the Parks & Recreation map is the third
map and it remained the same as previous years. Finally, he presented the Transportation map, which
included a couple modifications due to a variety of projects moving forward.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3052
Minutes of January 15, 2014
Mr. Ruddy noted that the Gainesboro Citizens Convenience Center came off the list as
work is presently taking place; and the all-day kindergarten projects are also being worked upon. He next
pointed out some new projects within the CIP, such as the Frederick County Administration/Public
Schools Joint Administration Building, which was an amendment to the CIP in 2013. He said the
Department of Parks & Recreation section has changed, based primarily upon public input surveys
conducted by the Parks & Recreation Department. He noted the transportation section has been changed
to split the projects between funded and unfunded projects. Mr. Ruddy said the maps illustrate the
projects and along with the narrative, each project is described throughout the body of the document
itself.
Commissioner Thomas inquired about the school renovation project for the all-day
kindergarten and whether construction had progressed to the point where the County could say it would
absolutely be ready for all-day kindergarten by August 2014.
Mr. Wayne Lee, Planner for Frederick County Public Schools, replied this project is
complete except for a few details. He said the project was delivered by the contractor on time and under
budget. Mr. Lee said the capital improvements are in place and filling positions with personnel is the next
hurdle.
Commissioner Unger had questions regarding the necessity of the Route 277
improvement project, if the exit at Stephens City is relocated. Mr. Ruddy replied if the Transportation
Planner, Mr. John Bishop, were present this evening, he believed Mr. Bishop would say the Route 277
project needs to move forward, even though the Southern Frederick Parkway and Route 307 may be
relocated at some point in the future. Mr. Ruddy believed Route 277 was a much needed project and the
improvements will help support anticipated future development and growth in that area. He believed that
both projects were absolutely needed.
Commissioner Unger also inquired if the Senseny Road improvements would be needed,
if Route 37 was eventually looped around Winchester as planned. Mr. Ruddy replied, yes, the
improvements to Senseny Road would certainly be needed. Mr. Ruddy commented that all of these
details go to the MPO and the modeling that helps qualify all of the planned improvements. Mr. Ruddy
added that Senseny Road would have an interchange on Route 37 at its eastern point.
Commissioner Triplett asked about the status of Warm Springs Road. Mr. Ruddy said
Warm Springs Road is on the Secondary Road Improvement Plan and has no time schedule. Mr. Ruddy
explained the Capital Improvement Plan deals primarily with the Primary Road Improvement Plan and
many of the secondary roads, while programmed in some way, is somewhat of a separate document.
There were no further comments or questions. Mr. Ruddy said the 2014-2015 Capital
Improvements Plan will go to the Board of Supervisors as a discussion item at their meeting of February
12, 2014 meeting.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3053
Minutes of January 15, 2014
Discussion of Public Facilities and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for Frederick County, Virginia.
The Planning Commission will discuss a proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan:
Public Facilities as a component of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is a follow up
to and in support of the discussion of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the proposed
County/ School Board Administration Building to be located generally within Frederick County’s
Urban Development Area. The proposed amendment continues to promote Frederick County
government and its effort to provide accessible, effective, and high quality government services to
its citizens, business owners, and community partners. The proposed amendment would be
inserted into the Comprehensive Plan within Chapter VI, Public Facilities – Creating Community
with Public Facilities.
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, said it is anticipated this amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan will be incorporated into Chapter VI, Public Facilities, and particularly, the section
entitled, Creating Community with Public Facilities. He said when the CIP (Capital Improvements Plan)
was amended in 2013, there was discussion about where such facilities would be located. Although the
project was generally supported in the Comprehensive Plan, it was recognized that more could be done to
ensure that Frederick County government services were being promoted within the Comprehensive Plan
and accessibility to those services, whether it be through physical buildings providing a focal point for the
community, or other ways of accessing those government services that may be more technologically
oriented. Mr. Ruddy stated this is the purpose behind this amendment initiated by the CPPC
(Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee). It follows the same format as the remainder of the
Comprehensive Plan and reinforces a policy: to improve services to citizens through the efficient and
effective provision of community facilities. He noted six points included to implement this policy.
Mr. Ruddy stated that the goal is to reinforce the role of Frederick County’s government
services and make sure they are as accessible as they can be. He said the CPPC initiated this paralleling
through the process with the CIP, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, and believed this was the
appropriate way to incorporate it. He said the CPPC reviewed this amendment in September 2013 and
waited until the CIP came forward because they desired to have the project incorporated within both
documents together as it goes through the process.
There were no questions or comments made by the Planning Commission at this time.
Mr. Ruddy said this item will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their
discussion at their meeting of February 12, 2014.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3054
Minutes of January 15, 2014
OTHER
PLANNING COMMISSION ANNUAL RETREAT
Chairman Wilmot announced the Planning Commission’s Annual Retreat has been
scheduled for Saturday, February 8, 2014, to be held at the Holiday Inn Winchester Historic Gateway at
333 Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) from 8:00am to 12:00 Noon.
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Thomas
and second by Commissioner Oates, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3055
Minutes of February 5, 2014
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on February 5, 2014.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R.
Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District;
Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red
Bud District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess,
Board of Supervisors Liaison; and William Wiley, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison.
ABSENT: J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk.
-----------
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the February 5, 2014 meeting of the Frederick County Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to
join in a moment of silence and in remembrance of Marjorie M. Copenhaver.
-------------
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) – 1/23/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported the DRRC held their election of officers and he will
remain Chairman for the upcoming 2014 year and Mr. Kevin Kenney will remain as the Vice-Chairman.
Commissioner Unger said the other items of discussion were: 1) potential revisions to the landscaping
requirements contained within the zoning ordinance pursuant to the Business Friendly Committee
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3056
Minutes of February 5, 2014
recommendations; 2) continuation of discussion on potential revisions to the Master Development Plan
requirements contained within the zoning ordinance pursuant to the Business Friendly Committee
recommendations; Commissioner Unger commented the DRRC felt the MDP should come through the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors; 3) discussion on potential revisions to the
allowances for exemptions to the structure height maximums currently contained within the zoning
ordinance; and 4) discussion on revisions to Part 702 of the Floodplain Overlay District.
-------------
Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) – 1/23/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Triplett reported the CEA continued their discussions on getting
information out to the public about the advantages of conservation easements. Commissioner Triplett
said a production team was chosen to create informational conservation easement brochures and videos.
-------------
Southern Frederick Area Land Use Study (SFALUS) – 1/29/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Mohn reported that SFALUS formally kicked off January 29, 2014.
Commissioner Mohn said all the working groups gathered and started on their work; they will all be
engaged over the upcoming month and should provide their initial reports back through Deputy Planning
Director, Michael Ruddy, to the larger working group, and the Comprehensive Plans & Programs
Committee by 28th of February.
-------------
Committee Appointments
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee
Chairman Wilmot announced the appointments as follows: Christopher Mohn, Planning
Commission member, Red Bud District; Gary Oates, Planning Commission member, Stonewall District;
Rhodes Marston, Planning Commission member, Back Creek District; Paige Manuel, Planning
Commission member, Shawnee District; Roger Thomas, to serve ex-officio, Planning Commission
member, Opequon District; June Wilmot, to serve ex-officio, Planning Commission Chairman, At Large;
James Golladay, Citizen Member and former Chairman of the Planning Commission; Kay Dawson,
Citizen Member, Red Bud District; and Tony Morelli, Citizen Member, Opequon District.
Development Review & Regulations Committee
Chairman Wilmot announced the appointments as follows: Greg Unger, Planning
Commission member, Back Creek District; Kevin Kenney, Planning Commission member, Gainesboro
District; Gary Oates, Planning Commission member, Stonewall District; Lawrence Ambrogi, Planning
Commission member, Shawnee District; Roger Thomas, to serve ex-officio, Planning Commission
member, Opequon District; June Wilmot, to serve ex-officio, Planning Commission Chairman, At Large;
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3057
Minutes of February 5, 2014
Jay Banks, Citizen Member, Back Creek District; Tim Stowe, Citizen Member, Back Creek District;
Dwight Shenk, Citizen Member, Gainesboro District; Eric Lowman, Citizen Member, Red Bud District;
and Whitney Wagner, Citizen Member, Stonewall District.
-------------
Citizen Comments
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the
Planning Commission’s agenda. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen
comments portion of the meeting.
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #01-14 of Wesley W. Rudolph for a public garage without body repair at
2360 South Pifer Road. The property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is identified with P.I.N. 81-A-50 in
the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action – Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported the property under
consideration is surrounded by RA-zoned properties with residential land use. Mr. Cheran said the
proposed CUP (conditional use permit) is for a public garage without body repair, which is a permitted
use in the RA Zoning District with an approved CUP. He noted this area of Frederick County is to
remain rural in nature and is not subject to any land use study as noted within the Comprehensive Plan.
He said the proposed use will be conducted in an existing structure on a 29-acre parcel. Mr. Cheran said
the closest dwellings to the proposed use are greater than 500 feet away. He next read a list of
recommended conditions, should the Planning Commission find the proposed use to be appropriate.
Mr. Wesley W. Rudolph, the applicant and co-owner of the property, said he is
requesting a CUP for a small engine repair shop to be located in an existing garage on property he owns
in Star Tannery.
Commissioner Unger asked the applicant for clarification on the type of engines he
intends to repair. Mr. Rudolph said typically, it’s not auto repair but lawn mowers, chain saws, small
compact tractors, and other items the average homeowner would use around his home and property.
Commissioner Oates commented that recommended Condition #5 limits the applicant to
repairing only five vehicles or equipment on site at any time. Commissioner Oates said five chain saws,
weed eaters, or mowers are not many pieces of equipment and he asked the applicant if he felt that
number was too restrictive. Mr. Rudolph believed that number could be somewhat restrictive, but he
would abide by whatever condition the Commission sets forth.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3058
Minutes of February 5, 2014
Commissioner Unger agreed with Commissioner Oates. Commissioner Unger said he
could bring over five pieces of equipment for repair at one time and he believed that limiting the applicant
to five pieces of equipment was too restrictive.
Commissioner Crockett also agreed with the previous Commissioners’ comments. He
said vehicles are one matter; however, for small engine repair it seems very restrictive.
Commissioner Ambrogi commented that the repair activities will be taking place in an
enclosed garage.
Commissioner Thomas believed there were some redundant restrictions in the list of
recommended conditions. Commissioner Thomas said he didn’t see any reason to have Condition #4 (No
more than five customers per day) and Condition #5 (The applicant will be limited to repairing only five
vehicles or equipment on site at any time) with Condition #6 (All repair activities shall occur entirely
within the enclosed structure). Commissioner Thomas questioned limiting the number of customers and
pieces of equipment, if all repair work is to be carried on inside. He suggested amending Condition #6 to
include that all equipment storage will be within the enclosed structure.
Chairman Wilmot asked the applicant if he would be the sole employee and Mr. Rudolph
replied yes.
Chairman Wilmot called for any citizen comments, either in favor or opposition to the
CUP. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
hearing.
Commissioner Unger made a motion to recommend approval of CUP #01-14 of Wesley
W. Rudolph with the conditions recommended by the staff except for the deletion of Conditions #4 and
#5 and an amendment to Condition #6 to state: All repair activities and storage shall occur entirely within
the enclosed structure. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and was unanimously
passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #01-14 of Wesley W. Rudolph for a public garage without body repair at 2360
South Pifer Road. The property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is identified with P.I.N. 81-A-50 in the Back
Creek Magisterial District, with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and shall not
exceed four square feet in size and five feet in height.
3. One employee allowed other than the applicant.
4. All repair activities and storage shall occur entirely within the enclosed structure.
5. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; no repair activities will take place on
Sunday.
6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3059
Minutes of February 5, 2014
(Note: Commissioner Marston was absent from the meeting.)
-------------
ACTION ITEM
Waiver Request submitted by Donohue & Stearns, PLC for a Reduction in Setback for an
approved Telecommunications Tower for Verizon Wireless/Bertha McIlwee Trust. The property is
located at 2250 Back Mountain Road (Rt. 600) and is identified with P.I.N. 49-A-28 in the Back
Creek District.
Action – Recommended Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported this request is for a
waiver for a 195-foot telecommunications tower for Verizon Wireless/Bertha McIlwee Trust which was
approved through CUP (conditional use permit) #03-13 by the Board of Supervisors on September 9,
2013. Mr. Cheran stated that without the requested waiver, this tower would need a setback of 210 feet
from the nearest property line. He said the applicant provided a letter from a certified Virginia engineer,
confirming the collapse zone of the proposed monopole would be equal to or less than the setback
provided, specifically, 74 feet; the letter has been included within the Commission’s agenda package this
evening. Mr. Cheran explained that at the time this CUP was presented to the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors, the setback waiver was not specifically acted upon; the CUP was approved, but
no action was specifically taken on the setback waiver. Mr. Cheran stated the proposed waiver could
possibly affect four adjoining properties. The Planning Department sent notifications to those adjoining
properties; however, no comments were received by the staff. Mr. Cheran added that should the waiver
be granted, it would result in a 111.4 foot setback reduction from the RA setbacks.
Commissioner Thomas inquired if the tower manufacturer could sell the rights to install
the tower to another tower manufacturer, if the waiver request is approved. Mr. Cheran replied they
would still have to abide by the CUP with the waiver; the CUP and the waiver would stay with the land.
Commissioner Thomas asked if they would still have to comply with the engineer’s certification and Mr.
Cheran replied yes.
Commissioner Unger asked for clarification on why the Commission was reviewing this
again; he asked if the location changed. Mr. Cheran replied the location stayed the same. Mr. Cheran
said at the time this was presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, the waiver
request was not specifically acted upon and, therefore, the Board of Supervisors tabled the CUP and the
request was sent back through the process.
Ms. Stephanie Petway, representing Verizon Wireless, stated the location remains the
same. She said this is primarily an administrative issue as the waiver was not included as part of the
conditions of approval. Ms. Petway said they had requested the waiver, the waiver request was included
in the application and was discussed by the Planning Commission, however, when it went to the Board of
Supervisors, the waiver was not included for approval.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3060
Minutes of February 5, 2014
Commissioner Dunlap commented that the letter from the structural engineer included
within the agenda packet is three years old. Ms. Petway said the applicant started this process three years
ago and this is the same manufacturer they would use to construct the tower. She said they could get a
more current letter, but it is the same information.
Chairman Wilmot called for any citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and
Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the discussion.
Commissioner Unger recommended approval of the waiver of the setback. This motion
was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and passed by the following majority vote:
YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Unger, Ambrogi, Manuel, Crockett, Oates, Kenney, Triplett, Dunlap,
Mohn, Wilmot
NO: Thomas
(Note: Commissioner Marston was absent from the meeting.)
-------------
INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS
Revised Master Development Plan #02-14 for Doonbeg, submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc.,
to develop 4.78 acres into 25 single-family small lots. The property is located on the north side of
Apple Valley Road (Rt. 652), approximately ¼ mile west of Valley Pike (Rt. 11 South) intersection.
The property is identified with P.I.N. 63-((A))-52A in the Back Creek Magisterial District. This
item is presented for informational purposes only.
No Action Required
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a proposal for a 25 single-family,
small-lot development located off Apple Valley Road. Ms. Perkins said this is a revised MDP (master
development plan) and the original MDP was approved back in 2012. She said Apple Valley Road and
the cul-de-sac through the development remain in the same location originally approved. Ms. Perkins
said there are two primary changes with this MDP. The first change is the addition of one residential lot,
which is the result of the property owner acquiring additional acreage. The second change is the
elimination of a residential separation buffer originally shown along the back property line. Ms. Perkins
pointed out that with the modification of the RP standards back in January of 2013, the residential
separation buffers between those housing types were removed. Ms. Perkins noted that although the MDP
does show the removal of the buffer, the applicant will be retaining the existing fence along the northern
property line, which is labeled on the MDP. In addition, the original MDP contained a number of waivers
and all of those waivers stay with the property and remain in place. Ms. Perkins said this is a revised
MDP and is being presented as an informational item only.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was present to answer any questions
from the Commission.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3061
Minutes of February 5, 2014
No issues or concerns were raised by members of the Commission. No action was
needed or required by the Commission at this time.
-------------
Revised Master Development Plan #01-14 of Snowden Bridge, submitted by Greenway
Engineering, Inc., to develop 1,234 units of single-family, townhouse, and multi-family houses. The
subject properties are located on the south side of Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 761) and Jordan
Springs Road (Rt. 664) and east of Milburn Road (Rt. 662). The properties are identified with
P.I.N.s 44-A-31B, 44-A-292A, and 44-A-293 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Please note this
item is presented for informational purposes only.
Request for Waiver – Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this revised MDP (master development
plan) is a proposal for 364.7 acres of land, zoned R4 (Residential Planned Community); however, the
actual change only applies to approximately 158 acres of the development. Ms. Perkins reported a total
of 1,234 units within the entire development and will consist of a mix of single-family, townhouse, and
multi-family units. She noted this MDP contains revisions to “Revised MDP-REV #2,” which was
reviewed by the Planning Commission in December 2012 and the Board of Supervisors in January of
2013. She said the primary revisions to this plan, “Revised MDP-REV #3,” are modifications to the road
network and housing types within the undeveloped portion of Landbay III.
Ms. Perkins stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from the Board of Supervisors for
the residential separation buffer required by Section 165-203.02C and will require a recommendation
from the Planning Commission. She explained the RP District changes adopted in January of 2013
introduced a requirement for a buffer between multiplex units and single-family units. She noted the
zoning ordinance requires a Category B buffer as a residential screening element between the proposed
multiplex units and the existing residential properties which front on Jordan Springs Road. She said the
zoning ordinance allows the Board to consider a waiver of this buffer, “…if the topography of the lot
providing the buffer yard and the lot being protected is such that the required buffer yard would not be
effective.” Ms. Perkins said the existing residential structures on Jordan Springs Road sit much higher
than the proposed multiplex units proposed in the Snowden Bridge Development.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, representing this MDP, stated there is a
fairly lengthy distance between the existing residences and the proposed residences. He said the closest
unit from an existing residence was greater than 200 feet and others were over 300-400 feet. Mr. Wyatt
said the primary issues were the dropping topography and grading, and a ravine. He explained if the six-
foot high, board-on-board fence was constructed, in conjunction with the road, it would not supply the
desired buffer and existing residents will still look over roof tops. Mr. Wyatt said the applicant has sent
letters to the property owners in this area and offered to place landscaping, which would have otherwise
been required, if the residents would supply them an easement to do so.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3062
Minutes of February 5, 2014
Commissioner Kenney commented that the diagram submitted was not a true depiction of
scale and he would have preferred to see a more realistic view in order to make a decision. Other
Commissioners commented that if the six-foot fence was constructed, it would not create the desired
buffer because the view would be across the top of the fence and the sides of the townhouses would still
be within view. They were of the opinion the fence would not be practical in this situation and the waiver
request was valid.
Commissioner Crockett made a motion to recommend approval of the request for a
waiver from the residential separation buffer required by Section 165-203.02C between the proposed
multiplex units and the existing single-family units. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap
and was unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the request for a waiver from the residential separation buffer, required by
Section 165-203.02C of the zoning ordinance, between the proposed multiplex units and the existing
single-family units as requested by Greenway Engineering, Inc. for revised Master Development Plan
#01-14 of Snowden Bridge.
(Note: Commissioner Marston was absent from the meeting.)
-------------
OTHER
Planning Commission Annual Retreat
Chairman Wilmot announced the Planning Commission will have their 2014 Annual
Retreat this Saturday, February 8, at the Holiday Inn Winchester Historic Gateway, beginning at 8:00 a.m.
Chairman Wilmot stated this year, the Planning Commission’s discussions will focus not on “what” the
Commission does, but “how” the Commission does its work.
-------------
Cancelation of the February 19, 2014 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Commission’s
February 19, 2014 meeting.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Mohn, the
Planning Commission voted unanimously to cancel their meeting of February 19, 2014.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3063
Minutes of February 5, 2014
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner
Oates to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and unanimously
passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
FREDERICK COUNTY
VIRGINIA
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
2014-2015
Fiscal Year
Adopted by the
Frederick County
Board of Supervisors
tbd, 2014
Recommended by the
Frederick County
Planning Commission
tbd, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………. 1
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………. 2
Frederick County Public Schools…………………………………………...2
Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department………………………. 3
Handley Regional Library ……………………………………………….. 4
Transportation Committee…………………………………………………. 4
Winchester Regional Airport………………………………………………. 4
County Administration ……………………………………………………..5
Fire & Rescue……….. ……………………………………………………..5
2014-2015 CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP………………………………………….. 7
2014-2015 COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP……….. 9
2014-2015 COUNTY PARKS AND REC. CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP…………11
2014-2015 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS MAP………………..……………. 13
2014-2015 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TABLE……………………15
CIP TABLE EXPLANATIONS…………………………………………………… 21
PROJECT FUNDING……………………………………………………………… 21
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS………………………………………………………. 23
Frederick County Public Schools…………………………………………...23
Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department………………………. 29
Handley Regional Library…………………………………………………..37
Transportation Committee…………………………………………………..40
Winchester Regional Airport………………………………………………. 45
County Administration…………………………………………………….. 53
Fire and Rescue……………..……………………………………………….55
Individual Fire & Rescue Company Requests……………………….59
1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
FREDERICK COUNTY
2014-2015
INTRODUCTION
Section 15.2-2239 of the Code of Virginia assigns the responsibility for preparation of
plans for capital outlays to the local Planning Commissions. The Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP) consists of a schedule for major capital expenditures for the county for the
ensuing five years.
The CIP is updated annually. Projects are removed from the plans as they are completed
or as priorities change. The plan is intended to assist the Board of Supervisors in
preparation of the county budget. In addition to determining priorities for capital
expenditures, the county must also ensure that projects contained within the CIP conform
to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, the projects are reviewed with
considerations regarding health, safety, and the general welfare of the public, and the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. When the CIP is adopted, it becomes a component
of the Comprehensive Plan. Frederick County approved the 2030 Comprehensive Plan on
July 3, 2011.
The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as a capital facilities planning
document, not for requesting funding allocations. Once adopted, project priorities may
change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that
particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The
status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is
projected.
Transportation projects are included in the CIP. The inclusion of transportation projects
to the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be independently
undertaking these projects. Funding projects will continue to come from a combination of
state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing.
The 2014-2015 CIP continues to emphasize the connection between the CIP,
Comprehensive Plan, and potential proffered contributions made with future rezoning
projects. This effort continues to be reinforced through the effort of the Parks and
Recreation Department and their identification of their comprehensively planned parks
including community, neighborhood, and district parks.
2
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
Frederick County Public Schools
Frederick County Public Schools continue to commence and complete capital projects
that have been priorities from previous years. The James Wood Middle School parking
lot safety enhancements, a project done in conjunction with the City of Winchester to
address several traffic safety concerns identified in the vicinity of James Wood Middle
School over the years, has recently been completed and has therefore been removed from
this year’s CIP. Previously removed, is the new transportation facility located adjacent to
Armel Elementary School. The facility houses administration, driver training areas,
driver and staff meeting areas, mechanical service and repair bays, inspection bay, wash
bay, and fueling bays.
The school renovations proposed to prepare school facilities for an all day Kindergarten
program have moved off the CIP as they have been programmed to be funded and
initiated. The CIP has been reflected accordingly. It should be recognized that the all day
kindergarten program had been delayed for several years in light of the recent fiscal
climate so it is very positive to see the all day kindergarten program progress through the
joint efforts of Frederick County Public Schools and the Board of Supervisors.
The Replacement of Frederick County Middle School is the School’s top Capital
improvement priority with improvements to Aylor Middle School the second highest
priority. The construction of the County’s fourth High School is the third priority. The
new high school and both a replacement and new middle school have been requested in
anticipation of the future demand of a growing student population.
A new project, an addition and renovations to Indian Hollow Elementary School, is
proposed. Indian Hollow Elementary School opened in 1988 and is the County’s smallest
elementary school building with a program capacity of 492 students. Renovations to the
existing portion of the building will address several major issues, including classroom
storage, ADA compliance, energy conservation, security, and upgrades of fire alarm,
electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems. A building addition will be needed to
maintain program capacity. This year’s CIP continues to include a request to renovate
and expand the current administration building on Amherst Street.
In an effort to maintain educational facilities that will handle the growing student
population, the construction of two new elementary schools is recommended within the
UDA (Urban Development Area). However, the timeframe for these facilities has been
extended out several years. Elementary School number 12 has been advanced.
3
Parks & Recreation
Baseball field lighting at both Clearbrook and Sherando Parks is the number one capital
improvement priority for Parks and Recreation.
This year’s CIP is reflective of the ongoing effort to seek community input into the parks
and recreation programs and facilities. The recently completed survey has been taken into
consideration when prioritizing parks and recreation capital projects.
Swimming improvements continue to be a focus for Parks and Recreation. The upgrade
of pool amenities at the swimming pools at both parks will include the addition of water
slides and a spray ground. This project is expected to increase pool attendance by 30
percent while providing recreational opportunities for both the Sherando and Clearbrook
Park service areas. The indoor aquatic facility continues to be proposed as a high priority
of the Parks and Recreation Department, with modifications to the scope of the project
aimed at providing flexibility in its design.
The Parks and Recreation Department has proposed to acquire land in both the eastern
and western portions of the county for the development of future regional park system.
Both land acquisitions call for 150-200 acres of land to accommodate the recreational
needs of the growing population.
The effort of the Parks and Recreation Department and their identification of their
comprehensively planned parks including community, neighborhood, and district parks,
further emphasizes the connection between the CIP, Comprehensive Plan, and potential
proffered contributions made with rezoning projects.
The majority of the recommended projects are planned for the county’s two regional
parks (Sherando & Clearbrook). Projects planned for Sherando Park include: upgrade of
baseball lighting, upgrade pool amenities, a softball complex, a soccer complex,
maintenance compound and office, skateboard park, parking and multi-purpose fields
with trail development, picnic area with a shelter, and an access road with parking and
trails. The projects planned for the Clearbrook Park include, upgrade of baseball lighting,
upgrading pool amenities, a new open play area, a tennis/basketball complex, and shelter
with an area for stage seating.
A project that has moved up in priority for Parks and Recreation is the Abrams Creek
Greenway Trail. This capital project was first recognized in last year’s CIP. This facility
would provide recreational opportunities for residents of this corridor along with the
surrounding communities and was emphasized in the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban
Areas Plan completed during 2012. This project will provide trails with bicycle, walking
and joggings opportunities, which ranks #1 in the 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan survey for
all outdoor recreational activities.
4
Handley Regional Library
The Handley Regional Library continues to recommend four projects, consistent with
their 2013-2014 requests. The library’s top priority is a parking lot sidewalk extension
promoting sidewalk access at the Bowman Library as phase 2 of the parking lot
expansion project. The parking lot expansion component of the project was completed
during 2011. The library wishes to extend the sidewalks to serve residents traveling from
the east to Lakeside Drive.
The three remaining projects request that funding be provided for new library branches
throughout the county which include the areas of Gainesboro, Senseny/Greenwood Road,
and Route 522 South, with the latter two being located within the UDA (Urban
Development Area).
Transportation Committee
The Transportation Committee continues to provide project requests for the CIP.
Virginia State Code allows for transportation projects to be included within a locality's
CIP. Funding for transportation project requests will likely come from developers and
revenue sharing. Implementation of transportation projects does not take away funding
for generalized road improvements.
The Transportation Committee has requested funding for sixteen projects. The sixteen
requests include projects that entail widening of major roads; key extensions of roads that
help provide better networks, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and the addition of
turn lanes at current unsafe intersections. The Senseny Road bicycle and pedestrian
improvement project has been removed from the plan. The inclusion of the Eastern Road
Plan Improvements item once again emphasizes the connection between the CIP and
potential proffered contributions made with rezoning projects which are aimed at
mitigating potential transportation impacts identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The major change to the transportation project list in this year’s CIP is the classification
of the projects into funded and unfunded priorities.
Winchester Regional Airport
Funding for airport projects is derived through a complex formula where the federal and
state governments contribute a majority of the funding, with Frederick County and the
other jurisdictions providing the remaining funding.
The Airport has recently completed a major improvement of their runway. With this
project moving from the CIP, The Airport Authority is now focusing their CIP efforts on
Taxi way improvements and Property acquisition in support of airport development to
meet Federal Aviation requirements for general aviation facilities. The vast majority of
the funding for these improvements came from the FAA and VDA.
5
The number one priority for the Airport is the acquisition of property to support airport
operations. The construction of a new general aviation terminal to support future airport
operations and associated parking improvements is a project that has been elevated iin
this year’s CIP and remains in this years. A new project for the airport is the Fuel Storage
Facility.
The number of projects that are included in this CIP has been consolidated over last year
as the Airport Authority is further aligning the County’s CIP with the one provided to the
Virginia Department of Aviation.
County Administration
With the Gainesboro citizen convenience center project moving forward, the number one
priority is a new facility proposed as a replacement for the Albin Convenience site. The
other request is for the expansion/relocation of the Gore Refuse Site to allow for a trash
compactor, which will reduce operational costs, by compacting trash before it reaches the
landfill.
The joint County Administration and School Administration Building that was included
in last year’s amended CIP remains in this year’s project list.
Previously, an item was added to enhance the connection between the CIP and proffered
contributions made to mitigate the impacts of development projects is an item that
addresses general government capital expenditures that may fall below the established
$100,000 departmental threshold. This is similar to the approach previously taken for Fire
and Rescue Capital Equipment. The structure of the County Administration section of the
CIP has been modified and no longer includes Fire and Rescue. Fire and Rescue has its
own section which is as follows.
Fire and Rescue
The top project for the Fire and Rescue component remains the creation of Fire & Rescue
Station #22 in the vicinity of Route 277, with the ability to provide an annex facility for
other county related offices. The collaboration of this project with other community
users and a land use planning effort was a key element of the Route 277 Land Use Plan.
Fire and Rescue has also included a project which provides for the capital apparatus
needs of this facility.
Fire & Rescue has once again requested the relocation of two current fire stations in order
to operate more efficiently; Round Hill and Clearbrook. Three newer projects for Fire
and Rescue are the creation of Station #23, a new facility located in the vicinity of
Crosspointe, the creation of Station #24 in the vicinity of Cross Junction/Lake Holiday,
and a Fire & Rescue Regional Training Center. Such a Regional Public Safety Training
Center potentially consisting of an administrative building, multi-story burn building,
6
multi-story training tower, vehicle driving range, shooting range, and numerous other
training props. This project will incorporate emergency medical services, fire, hazardous
materials, rescue, law enforcement, industrial, and educational institutions located within
the region.
Fire and Rescue Volunteer Company Capital Equipment Requests
Previously, a project consisting of a revolving fund in the amount of $1,000,000 for the
benefit of Fire and Rescue Services was established. It is the intention of this capital
expenditure fund to be for the purpose of purchasing additional and replacement capital
equipment fire and rescue vehicles and equipment that may fall below the guidelines
established by the Finance Committee. It was determined that the inclusion of such a
project would be beneficial in ensuring that this significant capital expense is identified in
the County’s capital planning and budget process. This project is primarily for the
benefit of the individual Volunteer Fire and Rescue Companies.
The individual Fire and Rescue Companies have identified their own Capital Requests
which have been added to the CIP in no particular order. Most of the Capital requests
meet the $100,000 guideline established by the Finance Committee. Those requests that
do not meet this guideline have been noted and therefore relate to the Fire & Rescue
Capital Equipment project category.
§¨¦81
§¨¦66
§¨¦81
0137
01259
01277
0155
0150
0111
01127
01522
017017
0150
0111
0150
01522
01522
0111
0137
0150
0 11,000 22,0005,500
Feet03 61.5
Miles
2014 - 2015Frederick CountyCapital Improvements Plan
V
2014 - 2015Capital ImprovementsSpecific or Approximate Locations
3
2
6
4
4
1
1
3
3
4
5
7
1
2
1 Albin Convenience Site Expansion2 Gore Convenience Site Expansion3 Annex Facility / Fire & Rescue Station4 Round Hill Fire Station Relocation5 Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation6 Fire & Rescue Station 237 Fire & Rescue Station 24
Airport
1 Bowman Library - Sidewalk Addition2 Northern Frederick County Library Branch3 Library Branch - Senseny & Greenwood4 Library Branch - Rt 522 South
Library
County Administration
7
8
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Elementary School
Replacement Frederick County Middle School
Snowden Bridge
Middle School
West Jubal Early
Fourth High School
Elementary School
Elementary School
Elementary School
Multi-Use Campus
Elementary School
Villages at Artrip
Buildings & Grounds
Old Transportation Facility
Administration
Senseny Road
Dowell J. Howard
New Transportation Facility
GBES
SWES
RRES
APRES
EES
AES
BHES
MTES
OVES
IHES
GMES
FCMS
JWMS
REAMS
ABMS
SHS
MHS
JWHS
WinchesterVirginia
MiddletownVirginia
StephensCityVirginia
0155
0111
01259
01522
0111
0137
0111
01277
01522
01522
01127
0150
01522
0150
017
01522
0150
01522
0111
01522
0137
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
!High Schools
!Middle Schools
!Elementary Schools
!Support Facilities
Potential School Facility Locations
Potential School Locations
Purchased Land
Proffered Land
Potential Proffer
Urban Development Area
SWSA
V
0 2 41 Miles
Note:Created by Frederick County Department ofPlanning & Development
Map represents the Capital Improvment Requests submitted by Frederick County School Board11/18/13
School LocationsAre MostAppropriateWithin the UDA
2014 - 2015Frederick CountyCapital Improvements Plan
Existing and Potential School Locations
9
10
l
[k
l
[k
[k
[k §¨¦81
£¤55
£¤50£¤259
£¤522
£¤522
£¤277
£¤522
£¤50
£¤11
£¤37
£¤11
£¤37
§¨¦81
Clearbrook
Sherando
EAST
NE
SW
NW
V
0 2 41 Miles
Note:Created by Frederick County Department ofPlanning & Development
Map represents the Capital Improvment Requests submitted by The Dept of Parks & Recreation11/18/2012
Existing County Parks
l District Park
[k Neighborhood ParkProposed ParksDistrictCommunityNeighborhoodLinear Park TrailUDA
* Please see attached Spreadsheet.
2014 - 2015Frederick CountyCapital Improvements Plan
New Parks/Rec Locations
11
12
$+
12
3
8
15
11
7
11
6
13 9
2
4
4
4
4
01522
0137
0111
01277
01522
01522
0150
017
01522
0111
0150
0137
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
Winchester
StephensCity
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, VA 22601www.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US11/18/13
V
2014 - 2015Frederick CountyCapital Improvement Plan
Transportation Projects
2014 - 2015Capital Improvement PlanTransportation Projects
$+
$+
Funded Priorities
Unfunded Priorities
16, EASTERN ROAD PLANIMPROVEMENTS16
2, ROUTE 277 WIDENING & SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (PH 1)3, EAST TEVIS EXTENSION & BRIDGE OVER I81
4, CONTINUE RT37 PLANNING & ENGINEERING WORK
6, ROUTE 277 WIDENING & SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (PH 2)
7, REDBUD ROAD REALIGNMENT
8, WARRIOR DR EXTENSION TO NEW EXIT 307
9, CHANNING DR EXTENSION TO RT50
11, RT11 N OF WINC WIDENING TO WV LINE
12, SENSENY RD WIDENING
13, INVERLEE WAY; CONNECTION FROM RT50 TO SENSENY RD
15, RENAISSANCE DR
$+10, BRUCETOWN RD/HOPEWELL RD; ALIGNMENT AND INTERSECTION10
14, FOX DR; INSTALL RT TURNLANE ONTO RT52214
10
14
ðñò""310 1, I-81 EXIT 310 IMPROVEMENTS
ðñò""310
1
5, I-81 EXIT 307 RELOCATIONðñò""307
ðñò""307
5
13
14
Department Priority County Contribution Per Fiscal Year
County
Contributions Notes
Total Project
Costs
Projects 2014-2015 2015-2016
2016-
2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019+
Ensuing
Fiscal Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 6+
Public Schools
Replacement Frederick County
Middle School $49,500,000 $49,500,000
Robert E. Aylor Middle School
Addition and Renovation $25,000,000 $25,000,000
Fourth High School $70,000,000 $70,000,000
Sherando High School Parking Lot
& Softball Field Improvements $5,000,000 $5,000,000
James Wood High School Renov.$10,000,000 $10,000,000
Elementary School #12 TBD TBD
Armel Elementary School Addition TBD TBD
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary
Phase 2 Renovation TBD TBD
County/School Board
Administration Building TBD E TBD
Bass Hoover Elementary
Phase 2 Renovation TBD TBD
Indian Hollow Elementary
Addition and Renovation TBD TBD
Fifth Middle School TBD TBD
Elementary School #13 TBD TBD
$0 $159,500,000
Parks & Recreation
Clearbrook & Sherando Baseball Field Lighting Upgrade $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Clearbrook & Sherando Water Slide/Spray Ground $1,251,000 $1,251,000 $1,251,208
Sherando Access Road w/Parking/Trails $1,540,000 $1,540,000 $1,540,626
Abrams Creek Greenway Trail $1,253,000 $1,253,000 $1,252,558
Sherando Lake/Trails/Parking- 2 Fields $1,361,000 $1,361,000 $1,360,610
Community Parks (5)$10,320,000 $10,320,000 $2,694,306
Neighborhood Parks (3)$1,986,000 $1,986,000 $447,928
Indoor Aquatic Facility $15,163,000 $15,163,000 $15,163,000
Park Land Eastern Fred. Co.$4,491,000 $4,491,000 $4,490,510
Park Land Western Fred. Co.$3,368,000 $3,368,000 $3,367,728
District Parks (Northeast and Southwest)$7,858,000 $7,858,000 $7,858,238
Sherando Picnic Areas $804,000 $804,000 $804,243
Indoor Ice Rink $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000
Community Center $8,803,000 $8,803,000
Clearbrook Open Play Areas $479,000 $479,000 $478,565
Sherando Soccer/Multi Use Fields $1,122,000 $1,122,000 $1,121,998
Sherando Softball Complex $671,000 $671,000 $671,062
Clearbrook Tennis/Basketball Complex $526,000 $526,000 $526,355
Sherando Skateboard Park $513,000 $513,000 $513,089
Clearbrook Shelter Stage $508,000 $508,000 $508,402
Fleet Trip Vehicles $290,000 $290,000 $290,000
1
5
16
Department Priority County Contribution Per Fiscal Year
County
Contributions Notes
Total Project
Costs
Projects 2014-2015 2015-2016
2016-
2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019+
Sherando Maintenance Compound $374,000 $374,000 $8,802,605
$4,091,000 60,443,031
Regional Library
Bowman Library Sidewalk $42,880 $42,880 $42,880
Gainesboro Library $210,617 $1,812,158 $256,500 $2,279,575 $2,279,575
Senseny/Greenwood Library TBD TBD
Route 522 South LibraryBranch TBD TBD
$42,880 $2,322,455
Transportation
Funded Priorities
I-81 Exit 310 Improvements $48,000,000 $48,000,000 E $48,000,000
Route 277, Fairfax Pike, Widening
and Safety Improvements (ph 1)$40,000,000 $40,000,000 E $40,000,000
East Tevis Street Extension and
Bridge over 81 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 E $6,000,000
Unfunded Priorities
Route 37 Engineering & Construction $300,000,000 $300,000,000 E $300,000,000
I-81 Exit 307 Relocation $60,000,000 $60,000,000 E $60,000,000
Route 277, Fairfax Pike, Widening
and Safety Improvements (ph 2)$15,000,000 $15,000,000 E $15,000,000
Redbud Road Realignment $2,500,000 $2,500,000 E $2,500,000
Warrior Drive Extension $23,200,000 $23,200,000 E $23,200,000
Channing Drive Extension $20,600,000 $20,600,000 E $20,600,000
Brucetown/Hopewell Realign.$3,000,000 $3,000,000 E $3,000,000
Widening of Route 11 North $47,800,000 $47,800,000 E $47,800,000
Senseny Road Widening $22,800,000 $22,800,000 E $22,800,000
Inverlee Way $10,200,000 $10,200,000 E $10,200,000
Fox Drive $250,000 $250,000 E $250,000
Rennaisance Drive $2,000,000 $2,000,000 E $2,000,000
Eastern Road Plan Improvements TBD TBD TBD
$300,000,000 $507,350,000
Winchester Airport
Land Parcel 64-A-69 $235,000 A,B $235,000
Land Parcel 64-A-70, 64-A-71 $525,000 A,B $525,000
Land Parcel 64B-A-40 $175,000 A,B $175,000
Land Parcel 64B-A-51 $235,000 A,B $235,000
New General Avaiation Terminal $50,000 $380,000 $2,600,000 A,B $3,030,000
Northside Connector $300,000 $1,250,000 A,B $1,550,000
New Terminal Parking Lot $650,000 A,B $650,000
Land Parcel 64-A-66 $275,000 A,B $275,000
Land Parcel 64-A-67 $275,000 A,B $275,000
Land Parcel 64B-A-33A $175,000 A,B $175,000
Land Parcel 64-A-60 $275,000 A,B $275,000
Land Parcel 64-A-63 $275,000 A,B $275,000
Land Parcel 64-A-64 $275,000 A,B $275,000
Fuel Storage Facility $1,000,000 A,B $1,000,000
1
7
18
Department Priority County Contribution Per Fiscal Year
County
Contributions Notes
Total Project
Costs
Projects 2014-2015 2015-2016
2016-
2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019+
Land Parcel 64B-A-47 $300,000 A,B $300,000
Land Parcel 64-A-49 $300,000 A,B $300,000
Land Parcel 64-A-50 $300,000 A,B $300,000
Land Parcel 64B-A-52 $300,000 A,B $300,000
Land Parcel 64-A-59 $300,000 A,B $300,000
North Side Svc Road $400,000 A,B $400,000
Taxiway "A" Relocation $200,000 $9,450,000 A,B $9,650,000
$0 $20,500,000
County Administration
Albin Citizens Center $16,000 $362,850 $378,850 $378,850
Relocation/Expansion Gore Site $16,000 $225,550 $225,550 $241,550
General Government Capital Expen $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 E $1,000,000
County/School Board
Administration Building TBD TBD E TBD
$216,000 $1,620,400
Fire & Rescue
Fire & Rescue Station #22 (277)$400,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,400,000 $3,400,000
Fire & Rescue Station #22 (277) Apparatus $100,000 $805,000 $905,000 $905,000
Fire & Rescue Station #23 $550,000 $2,150,000 $1,000,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000
Regional Training Center $75,000 $100,000 $1,250,000 $10,000,000 $19,750,000 $31,175,000 $31,175,000
Fire & Rescue Station #24 (Gainesboro)$250,000 $3,500,000 $3,750,000 $3,750,000
Station #15 (Round Hill) Relocation $494,000 $3,787,696 $4,281,696 E $4,281,696
Station #13 (Clearbrook) Relocation $33,000 $88,000 $4,275,000 $4,396,000 E $4,396,000
$1,002,000 $51,607,696
Fire & Rescue Company Capital Requests
Fire & Rescue Capital Equipment 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 E $1,000,000
* See Fire & Rescue Company Requests (<$100K)
Apparatus Ventilation System for Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Co.$550,000 $550,000 C $550,000
Office and Living Quarters for Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Co.$550,000 $550,000 C $550,000
Life Pack x3 for Middletown Vol. Fire & Rescue Co.$100,000 $100,000 C $100,000
Rescue Engine Replacement for Middletown Vol. Fire & Rescue Co.$790,000 $790,000 C $790,000
North Mountain Fire & Rescue Co.Building Expansion $314,766 $314,766 C $314,766
$2,304,766 $2,304,766 $3,304,766
Total 307,656,646 $806,648,348
* Fire & Rescue Company Capital Equipment Requests (<$100K)
None
$0
A= Partial funding from VA Dept. of Aviation N/A= Not Available
B= Partial funding from FAA TBD= To be Determined
C= Partial funding from private donations
D= Funding goes beyond displayed 5 years
E= Partial funding anticipated through development & revenue sources
F= Funding initiated prior to displayed 5 years
1
9
20
21
THE CIP TABLE
CONTENT DESCRIPTIONS
The Capital Improvements Plan table, on the previous pages, contains a list of the capital
improvement projects proposed for the ensuing five years. A description of the
information in this table is explained below.
Department Priority- The priority rating assigned by each agency or department for
their requested projects.
Project Description- The name of the capital improvement projects.
County Contribution- The estimated dollar value that will be contributed for each
project. This value is listed by individual fiscal years and by total contributions over the
five-year period. The total contribution column, located to the right of the fiscal year
columns, does not include debt service projections.
Notes- Indicates the footnotes that apply to additional funding sources for particular
projects.
Total Project Costs- The cost for each project, including county allocations and other
funding sources.
PROJECT FUNDING
The projects included in the 2014-2015 Capital Improvements Plan have a total project
cost to the county of $806,648,348. While the CIP is primarily used to cover the next five
years, much of the project costs have been identified beyond the next five years.
• School projects are funded through a combination of loans from the
Virginia Public School Authority and the Virginia Literary Fund.
• Funding for Parks and Recreation Department projects will come from the
unreserved fund balance of the County. The Parks and Recreation
Commission will actively seek grants and private sources of funding for
projects not funded by the county.
• Airport projects will be funded by contributions from the federal, state,
and local governments. The local portion may include contributions from
Frederick, Clarke, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties, and the City of
Winchester.
• The inclusion of transportation projects to the CIP is in no way an
indication that Frederick County will be independently undertaking these
projects. Funding projects will continue to come from a combination of
state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing.
22
23
Frederick County Public Schools Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Replacement of Frederick County Middle School
Description: Frederick County Middle School opened in 1965. The school contains
96,701 square feet and has a program capacity of 730 students. Currently, the building
serves grades 6-8. The building is in passable condition; however, there are several
major areas of concern. The replacement Frederick County Middle School (FCMS)
project will have a program capacity of 850 students and will serve grades 6-8. It will
have a floor area of approximately 166,000 square feet and have land acreage of
approximately 35 acres. This project could be located in the western part of Frederick
County between Route 50 west and Route 522 north or in the eastern part of Frederick
County between Snowden Bridge and Route 50.
Capital Cost: $49,500,000
Justification: The replacement FCMS is listed as a priority project due to the near-term
need to renovate the current FCMS, including major infrastructure and items dealing with
ADA compliance. Further, replacement is the best option because of concern for the best
building configuration for the delivery of instruction and the location of the facility.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 48 months.
PRIORITY 2
Robert E. Aylor Middle School Renovation
Description: Robert E. Aylor Middle School opened in 1969 and has served as a middle
school since that time. The school contains 113,643 square feet and has a program
capacity of 850 students. Currently, the building serves grades 6-8. The building is in
good condition; however, several major areas need to be addressed in a renovation.
Major areas of this renovation project include the following: additional classroom and
storage space, complete replacement of fire alarm and communication systems, roof
replacement, upgrade of electrical and plumbing, and complete replacement of
mechanical systems. Other areas to be addressed are security, repaving of asphalted
areas, and the installation of an emergency system.
Capital Cost: $25,000,000
Justification: Robert E. Aylor Middle School is soon to be 37 years of age and
renovations are needed to a number of different areas to ensure economic and efficient
operation of the school for years to come.
Construction Schedule: 48 Months
24
PRIORITY 3
Fourth High School
Description: The fourth high school project will have a program capacity of 1,250
students and serve grades 9-12. The location of this project has been added to the
Comprehensive Plan’s Capital Project Map for the east side of Frederick County,
centered on Route 522. The facility will have a floor area of approximately 254,000
square feet and be located on approximately 80 areas of land.
Capital Cost: $70,000,000
Justification: This project will address expected growth in high school student
enrollment in the school division over the next several years. We project that enrollment
in the high schools by the fall of 2016 will be 4,252. Based on this projection, it is
necessary to construct the fourth high school in Frederick County to open in that time
frame. The location of this project is shown on the Comprehensive Policy Plan’s
Potential New School Locations Map.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 54 months
PRIORITY 4
Sherando High School Parking Lot and Softball Field Improvements
Description: This project is being undertaken to address several traffic safety concerns
identified at Sherando High School over the years and equity issues (there is no softball
field at SHS). Traffic safety concerns have reached a level that we have completed two
studies of the site. Concerns exist for pedestrians, school buses, student drivers, parents,
and staff. Rearrangement of the site and the flow of traffic on the site is necessary to
address these needs.
Capital Cost: $5,000,000
Justification: This is a two-part project. For transportation safety, concerns exist on the
school site at Sherando High School during arrival and dismissal. The students, many of
their parents, and the staff necessary to serve them are exposed to these safety concerns
on a daily basis. The flow of traffic at arrival is so slow that at times vehicles back up
past Double Church Road. For the softball field, SHS does not have a softball field
onsite, instead using a softball field in neighboring Sherando Park. This represents an
equity issue between boys and girls sports. FCPS strives to attain equity between boys
and girls sports. Additionally, this is a Title IX issue.
Construction Schedule: 30 Months
PRIORITY 5
James Wood High School Renovation
Description: James Wood High School opened in 1980 and has served as a high school
since that time. The school contains 234,095 square feet and has a program capacity of
25
1400 students. Currently, the building serves grades 9-12. The building is in good
condition; however, several major areas need to be addressed in a renovation. Major
areas to be included in this renovation project are increased electrical service and
distribution to support technology, technology cabling, hardware and its installation,
upgrade of plumbing and mechanical systems, and modification of instructional areas to
support instructional delivery.
Capital Cost: $10,000,000
Justification: Updating the facility will assist the school division in meeting the
community needs for the citizens and high school student in the James Wood High
School attendance zone.
Construction Schedule: 36 Months
PRIORITY 6
Elementary School #12
Description: This is a single-story elementary school with a floor area of approximately
100,000 square feet located on 15 acres. The facility will be designed to accommodate a
student membership of 850.
Capital Cost: $TBD
Justification: This project will address anticipated growth in student enrollment in the
school division over the next several years. It is anticipated that student enrollment will
increase at all levels. A projection using cohort migration shows enrollment in the
elementary schools by the fall of 2020 to be 6,452. Based on this projection,
implementation of full-day kindergarten, and renovations at Apple Pie Ridge and Bass-
Hoover Elementary Schools, it will be necessary to construct the 12th elementary school
in Frederick County to open in that time frame. This school will be located in an area to
relieve overcrowding and to accommodate expected new housing development.
Locations for this project are on the Comprehensive Plan’s Potential New School
Locations Map and could be placed on one of the two currently proffered pieces of
property (Villages of Artrip or Snowden Bridge).
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 42 months.
PRIORITY 7
Armel Elementary School Addition
Description: Armel Elementary School opened in 1991 and currently has a program
capacity of 662 students. Currently, the building serves grades K-5. The building is in
good condition; however, several major areas need to be addressed. Renovations to the
existing portion of the building will address several major issues, including classroom
storage, ADA compliance, energy conservation, security, and upgrades of fire alarm,
electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems. A building addition will be needed to
maintain program capacity.
Capital Cost: $TBD
26
Justification: Armel Elementary School is ?? years old and nearing design life of much
of the infrastructure. Renovation to a number of areas and an addition are needed to
ensure the effective, economical, and efficient delivery of modern instruction at this
school.
Construction Schedule: 30 Months
PRIORITY 8
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School Phase 2 Renovations
Description: Currently, the building serves grades K-5. The building is in good
condition; however, several major areas need to be addressed. These items will be
addressed in two phases. The first phase, kindergarten renovation, was completed this
summer. In the second phase, a renovation of the remaining facility will be completed.
Several of the major issues to be addressed in this renovation include open classroom
space, ADA compliance, energy conservation, security, and upgrades of fire alarm,
electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems.
Capital Cost: $TBD
Justification: Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School is over 30 years old and renovation is
needed to a number of areas to ensure the economical and efficient operations of the
school for years to come.
Construction Schedule: 36 Months
PRIORITY 9
County/School Board Administration Building
Description: This new project consists of a County/School Board Administration
Building, to be located generally in the County’s Urban Development Area.
Capital Cost: TBD
Justification: The inclusion of this capital facility will allow for improvements to
general governmental facilities and services for the benefit of the residents of Frederick
County and will meet the increasing need for office space, meeting space, and
government services in an accessible location.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 10
Bass Hoover Elementary School Phase 2 Renovations
Description: Currently, Bass-Hoover serves grades K-5. The building is in good
condition, but several major issues need to be addressed. Renovation of the remaining
facility will be completed. Several of the major issues to be addressed in this renovation
include open classroom space, ADA compliance, energy conservation, security, and
27
upgrades of fire alarm, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems. A building addition
will be needed to maintain program capacity.
Capital Cost: $TBD
Justification: These renovations are needed to a number of areas to insure economic and
efficient operation of the schools for years to come and to accommodate a full day
kindergarten program.
Construction Schedule: 30 Months
PRIORITY 11
Indian Hollow Elementary School Addition and Renovation
Description: Indian Hollow Elementary School opened in 1988. The school contains
59,065 square feet and has a program capacity of 492 students. Indian Hollow is our
smallest elementary school building. Currently, the building serves grades K-5. The
building is in good condition; however, several major areas need to be addressed.
Renovations to the existing portion of the building will address several major issues,
including classroom storage, ADA compliance, energy conservation, security, and
upgrades of fire alarm, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems. A building
addition will be needed to maintain program capacity.
Capital Cost: $TBD
Justification: Indian Hollow Elementary School is 24 years old and nearing design life
of much of the infrastructure. The school was built without classroom storage.
Renovation to a number of areas and an addition are needed to ensure the effective,
economical, and efficient delivery of modern instruction at this school.
Construction Schedule: 30 Months
PRIORITY 12
Fifth Middle School
Description: The new fifth middle school project will have a program capacity of 850
students and serve grades 6-8. This project has been located on the Comprehensive
Policy Plan’s Potential New School Locations Map. The facility will have a floor area of
approximately 166,000 square feet and be located on approximately 35 acres of land.
Capital Cost: $TBD
Justification: This project will address growth in student enrollment in the school
division over the next several years. It is anticipated that student enrollment will increase
at all levels. A projection using cohort migration shows enrollment in the middle schools
by the fall of 2021 to be 3,284. Middle school program capacity is 3,280. The
replacement FCMS will increase capacity by 120. We anticipate that student population
growth will necessitate construction of the fifth middle school in Frederick County by the
fall of 2025. As shown on the Comprehensive Plan’s Potential New School Locations
Map, the location of this project previously has been in the eastern part of Frederick
County between Route 7 and Route 50 east. With reconsideration of the location of the
28
replacement FCMS, the fifth middle school potentially could be located between Route
522 north and Route 50 west.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 48 months.
PRIORITY 13
Elementary School #13
Description: This is a single-story elementary school with a floor area of approximately
100,000 square feet located on 15 acres. The facility will be designed to accommodate a
student membership of 750. The outdoor facilities will include three pods of grade-level
appropriate playground equipment, one asphalt play area, one softball field, and a
physical education field. This facility will meet or exceed all Virginia Department of
Education new construction requirements for K-5 elementary schools.
Capital Cost: $TBD
Justification: Significant residential growth in Frederick County is expected to resume
once the economy recovers, with the result that school enrollment is expected to exceed
program capacity in FY 2019-20.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 42 months.
29
Parks & Recreation Department Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Baseball Field Lighting Upgrade
Description: Upgrade the ballfield lighting at both Clearbrook and Sherando Parks
Baseball facilities. The upgrade would involve the removal of the 30/20 FC (footcandle)
level fixtures, lamps, and wood poles and replace with 50/30 FC (footcandle) level
fixtures, lamps and steel poles on (4) four fields at Clearbrook Park and (4) four fields at
Sherando Park. This upgrade is required by Little League International on all little
league fields.
Capital Cost: $1,300,000
Justification: This project will provide recreational opportunities for the Clearbrook
Park and Sherando Park service area which includes all county residents. Park visitation
at the two district parks exceeds 425,000 annually and is growing. The field lighting
fixtures are over 25 years old and the majority of the poles are over 35 years old. With
the decrease in the quality of lighting with the age of the system, with most of the poles
being warped and decayed and in need of replacement and to achieve the recommended
50/30 FC (footcandle) level on the playing surface, the Commission is recommending
these facilities be upgraded.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15
PRIORITY 2
Swimming Pool Improvements – Sherando/Clearbrook
Description: Upgrade the outdoor swimming pools at both Clearbrook and Sherando
Parks. Upgrade would involve the removal of the diving boards and the installation of
one 50' water slide and one 75' water slide at each pool. The upgrade would also include
the addition of a spray ground with 10-12 features at each pool.
Capital Cost: $1,251,000
Justification: This project is expected to increase pool attendance by 30 percent while
providing recreational opportunities for both the Sherando and Clearbrook Park service
areas.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 3
Access Road with Parking and Trails- Sherando Park
Description: This project involves the development of an entrance and 1,800 linear feet
of access roadway from Warrior Drive; a 100 space parking area; and 2.8 miles of trails.
Capital Cost: $1,540,000
Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park
service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this
facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational
30
areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service
area.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 4
Abrams Creek Greenway Trail
Description: 10’ wide asphalt multi-use bicycle/pedestrian trail along Abrams Creek
from Senseny Road to Channing Drive. It is estimated that the trail will have (3) three
bridges (stream crossings) and will be approximately 2.6 miles in length.
Capital Cost: $1,252,558
Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for residents of this
corridor along with the surrounding communities. This project will provide trails with
bicycle, walking and joggings opportunities, which ranks #1 in the 2007 Virginia
Outdoors Plan survey for all outdoor recreational activities.
Construction Schedule: FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 5
Lake, Parking, and Trail Development with two Multi-purpose Fields
Description: This project involves the development of a 12 acre lake; 1.5 mile trail
system around the lake; 800 linear feet of access roadway; lighted parking lot with 125
spaces; and development of two irrigated 70x120 yard multi-purpose fields.
Capital Cost: $1,360,610
Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park
service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this
facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational
areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service
area.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 15-16.
PRIORITY 6
Community Parks (5)
Description: Acquisition of Parkland; 60 acres
Capital Cost: $2,694,306
Justification: To reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the
amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for our service area, as
recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The project meets policy recommendations
for the development of parks and recreation facilities, insuring that adequate and
appropriate open space and recreational facilities are provided.
31
Construction Schedule: FY 17-18.
PRIORITY 7
Neighborhood Parks (3)
Description: Acquisition of Parkland; 20 acres
Capital Cost: $447,928
Justification: To reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the
amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for our service area, as
recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The project meets policy recommendations
for the development of parks and recreation facilities, insuring that adequate and
appropriate open space and recreational facilities are provided.
Construction Schedule: FY 17-18.
PRIORITY 8
Indoor Aquatic Facility – Competitive/Training/Leisure Pool
Description: This facility would house competitive, instructional, and leisure pools with
an office, adequate storage and locker rooms and would need approximately 10 acres to
construct. This facility should be located on property owned or proffered to the County.
The above pools may be constructed in one facility, separated into multiple facilities, or
collocated with other compatible uses should opportunities arise, reducing the acreage
demand.
Capital Cost: $15,163,000
Justification: There are no public indoor public pools in Frederick County. By
constructing the indoor pool, it would permit the department to meet competition needs,
instructional needs, citizen programming and leisure demands as well as provide a
nucleus to attract new businesses to the community. This facility would be available to
all area residents. The construction of this project will provide a facility to offer
competitive scholastic programs and year round recreational programming for the
residents of Frederick County. The Indoor Pool facility should be located in an area
convenient to the major transportation corridors of the county. However, as an
alternative, one of the two county regional parks could be used to house the facility, since
these locations are already identified as centers for recreation programs and activities.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 9
Park Land - Eastern Frederick County
Description: Parkland acquisition in the eastern portion of the county.
Capital Cost: $4,490,510
32
Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county
population. The park would be located in the primary growth center of Frederick County,
within the existing urban development area and the approved Southern Frederick Land
Use Plan, which consists of 1,200 acres of new residences. This project would reduce the
gap between the amount of existing parkland and the amount of parkland needed to meet
the minimum standard for the Frederick County service area, as recommended by the
Virginia Outdoors Plan.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 10
Park Land – Western Frederick County
Description: Parkland acquisition in the western portion of the county.
Capital Cost: $3,367,728
Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county
population. This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland
and the amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick
County service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The location of
this project would provide parkland to create more accessible recreational facilities to
residents in western Frederick County.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15
PRIORITY 11
District Parks (Northeast and Southwest)
Description: Acquisition of Parkland; 200 acres
Capital Cost: $7,858,238
Justification: To reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the
amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for our service area, as
recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The project meets policy recommendations
for the development of parks and recreation facilities, insuring that adequate and
appropriate open space and recreational facilities are provided.
Construction Schedule: FY 17-18.
PRIORITY 12
Picnic Area- Sherando Park
Description: This project includes a restroom/concession area; four picnic shelters;
playground area; access paths; parking; and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $804,243
33
Justification: These facilities would be used by the residents of Sherando Park service
area. This area of the county is growing and is deficient in passive recreational
opportunities. This development is needed to reduce the gap between the number of
existing facilities and the minimum standards for the Sherando Park service area and
southeastern Frederick County.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 16-17.
PRIORITY 13
Indoor Ice Rink
Description: The Ice Rink project would be approximately 40,000 square feet and
include an indoor area large enough to accommodate a single 200’ x 85’ ice rink, locker
rooms, party/meeting rooms, and concession area and would need approximately 10 acres
to construct. This facility should be located on property owned or proffered to the
County. The ice rink may be collocated with other compatible uses should opportunities
arise, reducing the acreage demand.
Capital Cost: $6,000,000
Justification: There are no public indoor ice rinks in Frederick County and county
residents currently must travel over one hour to use an indoor ice facility. By
constructing the indoor ice rink, it would permit the department to meet competition
needs, instructional needs, citizen programming and leisure demands as well as provide a
nucleus to attract new businesses to the community. This facility would be available to
all area residents. The construction of this project will provide a facility to offer year
round recreational programming for the residents of Frederick County. This project is
intended to meet the needs of the community as identified in the 2012 Frederick County
Parks and Recreation Community Survey.
Construction Schedule: FY 16-17.
PRIORITY 14
Multi-Generational Community Center
Description: The project involves building a 44,000 square foot facility that would
contain an indoor track and at least two basketball courts. The court area would be
designed to be used by indoor soccer, baseball, softball, wrestling, volleyball, tennis and
badminton. The area could also be used for special events. Additionally, the project
would house a fitness center, multi-purpose rooms, office, storage, and locker rooms.
Capital Cost: $8,802,605
Justification: This facility would give the Parks and Recreation Department the ability
to offer year round recreational programming to the residents of Frederick County. The
department can no longer meet the programming and facility needs of the County
residents.
Construction Schedule: FY 16-17.
34
PRIORITY 15
Open Play Area – Clearbrook
Description: This project includes development of a picnic shelter; six horseshoe pits; a
volleyball court; croquet turf; shuffleboard; parking; refurbishing the existing concession
stand; landscaping (14 shade trees); peripheral work; and renovations to existing shelters,
restrooms, access paths, and parking areas on the south side of the lake.
Capital Cost: $478,565
Justification: These facilities will provide recreational opportunities for the Clearbrook
Park Service Area which will lessen the disparity between the number of passive
recreational areas needed to meet the minimum standards for this service area.
Clearbrook Park offers the best location for this development.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 15-16.
PRIORITY 16
Soccer Complex- Sherando Park
Description: Soccer field - 210' x 360' artificial grass surface with goals. Access paths -
1500 LF; 10' wide; asphalt paved. Restroom/concession - 820 SF; masonry with concrete
roof deck; full concession hookup. Plaza - 22,000 SF; 50% paved/50% planted; kiosk.
Picnic shelters (1) - 24' x 24': 6 picnic tables each; concrete pad; wood frame structure;
asphalt shingles. 12 sets of bleachers. Landscaping - 90 shade trees. Lighting - 1 field
(210' x 360')
Capital Cost: $1,121,998
Justification: This facility would be used by the entire Frederick County area. In
addition to its use as a recreational facility, the soccer complex will also be used by the
Frederick County school system. To reduce the gap between the number of existing
soccer fields and the number of fields which are needed to meet the minimum standard
for our service area. Sherando Park, currently owned by Frederick County, represents the
very best location for soccer field development. The fact that the county will not have to
acquire property for this facility means that the most costly aspect of this development
has already been completed. Sherando Park also provides a location that is situated in
the fastest growing area of the county and is adjacent to the new county high school.
With joint use of facilities between the park and school system, the construction of
additional soccer fields will benefit both agencies.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 15-16.
PRIORITY 17
Softball Complex- Sherando Park
35
Description: Softball fields (2) - 300' radius, fully fenced, backstop, four 50 person
bleachers per field, lighted concrete poles 30/20 FC, concrete deck. Access Road - 500
LF. Parking - 153 spaces, asphalt paved with curbed islands and drop off; line markings
and 6 security lights. Landscaping - 100 shade trees; pine screen. Peripheral Work -
General seeding - 1 acre; miscellaneous signage.
Capital Cost: $671,062
Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for the entire county
population, as well as the Frederick County School System. Presently, there are ten
softball and baseball fields within the county’s regional park system. Eight of the
existing fields must serve a dual purpose of facilitating youth baseball, as well as adult
softball programs. With the increased usage of these fields, it has become increasingly
difficult to facilitate these programs. This project is needed in order for the Parks and
Recreation Department to accommodate the existing demand for youth baseball and adult
softball programs.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 18
Tennis/Basketball Complex- Clearbrook Park
Description: This project includes the development of four tennis courts; two basketball
courts; a shelter; access paths; parking; and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $526,355
Justification: These facilities will be available to all county residents. Currently, there
are no tennis courts or basketball courts in the Clearbrook Park Service Area. Clearbrook
Park is utilized by over 180,000 visitors annually; therefore, these facilities are needed.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 16-17.
PRIORITY 19
Skateboard Park - Sherando Park
Description: This project recommends the development of a skateboard bowl; a half
pipe; an open skate area; vehicle parking; an access road; fencing; and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $513,089
Justification: This facility will enable the County to provide a recreational facility that
has been identified in the County Comprehensive Plan for recreational facility
development.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 15-16.
PRIORITY 20
Shelter/Stage Seating- Clearbrook Park
36
Description: This project includes the development of a shelter with a performance
stage; refurbishing existing restrooms and access paths; and renovations to the lake.
Capital Cost: $508,402
Justification: This facility would be used by the entire county population. Presently,
there are no facilities to accommodate cultural programs within the county’s park system.
This project is needed to provide a facility for cultural activities.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 16-17.
PRIORITY 21
Fleet Trip Vehicles
Description: The Parks and Recreation Department needs to upgrade the current vehicle
fleet to offer a comprehensive package of trips for Frederick County citizen’s recreation
needs. The addition of the below vehicles would replace the current 1994 bus and 1999
van. These are necessary to adequately offer trip packages and provide reliable
transportation for program participants. Bus #1 – 40-50 Passenger Bus, Bus #2 – 30-40
Passenger Bus, Van #1 – 12 Passenger Van
Capital Cost: $290,000
Justification: To offer a comprehensive package of trips where the population of
Frederick County could begin to rely on the Parks and Recreation Department to meet
their trip needs.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 13-14
PRIORITY 22
Maintenance Compound and Office – Sherando Park
Description: This project involves the construction of a 1,200 square-foot office and a
3,200 square-foot storage shed for operation at Sherando Park.
Capital Cost: $374,310
Justification: This facility will enable the county to maintain its equipment and facilities
in a more responsible and effective manner. Also, with the additional responsibility of
maintaining all outdoor facilities at Sherando High School, Armel Elementary School,
Orchard View Elementary School, Bass-Hoover Elementary School, Middletown
Elementary School, R. E. Aylor Middle School, Admiral Byrd Middle School, Evendale
Elementary School, and the Public Safety Facility there is a need for more storage,
maintenance and office space. Sherando Park, currently owned by Frederick County,
will provide the best location for the development of this maintenance facility. Since the
maintenance equipment, staff and facility is needed to serve as a maintenance function
for Sherando Park’s grounds and facilities, this project should be located at Sherando
Park.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 15-16.
37
Handley Regional Library Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension
Description: The parking lot addition is completed. Phase 2, a sidewalk at Bowman
Library, has been revised to reflect Frederick County’s emphasis on complete streets. A
10-foot-wide, 640-linear-foot shared use path will provide a safe means for people to
reach Bowman Library by foot or bicycle from Lakeside Drive.
Capital Cost: $42,880
Justification: In 2010/2011, 135,532 individuals entered the Bowman Library. The
Library serves all age groups from very young children to senior citizens and provides
recreational and education materials for them. The library is a favorite location for
families to visit together and serves many children and adults when they are working on
school assignments or self-improvement. The library supplies computer access for word
processing and other office applications and for Internet usage. The Bowman Library has
proved very popular with children and families. Children from the Lakeside Drive side
of the Library often bicycle or walk to the library. If they bicycle, they ride on Tasker
Road where the traffic often goes faster than the 45 mph speed limit. If they walk, they
can walk across the field between the library and Lakeside Drive, and many children
jump the drainage ditch, rather than walk to the corner where it is easy to get across.
Mothers, who want to walk, complain they have to walk on Tasker Road, where there is
no sidewalk, when they have children in strollers. There is a bicycle rack near the
entrance to the library.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY14-15 (3-6 Months)
PRIORITY 2
Northern Frederick County – Gainesboro Library Branch
Description: Construction of a 7,000 to 10,000 sq.ft. branch library. Either as a
standalone facility or co-located with a planned Frederick County Facility (e.g. the new
middle school). Initial parking should be for at least 50 vehicles. The proposed location
would be on Rt. 522 in the Gainesboro district, but this could change depending on
patterns of library use and on whether donated land could be located or if co-located with
a Frederick County project already in the early planning stage.
Capital Cost: $2,279,575
Justification: This branch would serve citizens living in this growing area. In 2010-
2011 Frederick County citizens of all ages checked out 481,244 items. 38,321 Frederick
County residents have library cards and averaged 63.1% of all materials checked out of
the regional system. 2,743 Frederick County residents, adults and children, registered for
library cards for the first time in 2000-2011. Of Frederick County residents over five
years of age (when you can get a library card), approximately 52% of the total have
library cards. This population group is not close to a library in the regional system. The
Library will provide materials and programming for patrons from toddlers to senior
38
citizens. It will provide recreational and educational materials. It will be a prime source
for homework help since it will be open nights and on weekends when school libraries
are closed. The library will supply computer access for word processing and other office
applications and for Internet usage. There will be a meeting room of 425 square feet in
which area groups can meet.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 15-16
PRIORITY 3
Frederick County Library Branch – Senseny/Greenwood
Description: Construction of a 10,000 sq.ft. branch library with expansion possible to
15,000 square feet. Initial parking should be for a minimum of 35 vehicles. The
proposed location is yet to be determined and is dependent on future development. The
first step of the project would be the acquisition of the land of 5 to 8 acres.
Capital Cost: TBD
Justification: This branch would serve citizens living in this growing area. In 2010-
2011 Frederick County citizens of all ages checked out 481,244 items. 38,321 Frederick
County residents have library cards and averaged 63.1% of all materials checked out of
the regional system. 2,743 Frederick County residents, adults and children, registered for
library cards for the first time in 2000-2011. Of Frederick County residents over five
years of age (when you can get a library card), approximately 52% of the total have
library cards. This population group is not close to a library in the regional system. This
area also lacks a community center that a library with meeting room could help fill this
need. The Library will provide materials and programming for patrons from toddlers to
senior citizens. It will provide recreational and educational materials. It will be a prime
source for homework help since it will be open nights and on weekends when school
libraries are closed. The library will supply computer access for word processing and
other office applications and for Internet usage. There will be a meeting room of 425
square feet in which area groups can meet.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 4
Frederick County Library Branch- Route 522 South
Description: Construction of a 7,000 sq.ft. branch library with expansion possible to
10,000 square feet. Initial parking should be for a minimum of 35 vehicles. The
proposed location is yet to be determined and is dependent on future development. The
first step of the project would be the acquisition of the land of 3 to 4 acres.
Capital Cost: TBD
Justification: This population group is not close to a library in the regional system. This
area also lacks a community center that a library with meeting room could help fill this
need. The Library will provide materials and programming for patrons from toddlers to
senior citizens. It will provide recreational and educational materials. It will be a prime
source for homework help since it will be open nights and on weekends when school
libraries are closed. The library will supply computer access for word processing and
39
other office applications and for Internet usage. There will be a meeting room of 425
square feet in which area groups can meet.
Construction Schedule: TBD
40
Transportation Committee Project Priority List
Funded Priorities
PRIORITY 1
Interstate 81, Exit 310 Improvements
Description: Construct improvements to Exit 310 interchange.
Capital Cost: $48,000,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in many areas of the County and address coming development to the surrounding areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 2
Route 277 Widening and Safety Improvements (Ph 1)
Description: Construct a 4-lane divided roadway beginning at I-81 and continuing to
Sherando Park. Project would include realignment of Aylor Road to align with Stickley
Drive.
Capital Cost: $40,000,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in the Southern Frederick area and address development to the surrounding areas.
Construction Schedule: 2013-2017
PRIORITY 3
East Tevis Street Extension and Bridge over I-81
Description: Construct a 4-lane divided roadway beginning at Route 522 and going west
approximately 0.2 miles to connect to the road network being constructed by the Russell
150 development. Project includes bridge over Interstate 81.
Capital Cost: $6,000,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in many areas of the County and address development to the surrounding area. The
location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the county, VDOT, and the
developer.
Construction Schedule: TBD
Unfunded Priorities
PRIORITY 4
Planning, Engineering, Right of Way and Construction Work for Route 37
41
Description: This project would be to continue work on the Eastern Route 37 extension.
More specifically, to update the Environmental Impact Statement to the point of a new
Record of Decision and to update the 1992 design plans to address the current alignment,
engineering guidelines, and possible interchange improvements. In addition, this allows
for advanced engineering, right of way purchase and construction.
Capital Cost: $300,000,000 +
Justification: This project moves the County closer to completion of a transportation
improvement that would benefit the entire county and surrounding localities.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 5
Interstate 81, Exit 307 Relocation
Description: Construct a relocated Exit 307 interchange.
Capital Cost: $60,000,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in many areas of the County and address coming development to the surrounding areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 6
Route 277 Widening and Safety Improvements (Ph 2)
Description: Construct a 4-lane divided roadway beginning at I-81 and continuing to
Sherando Park. Project would include realignment of Aylor Road to align with Stickley
Drive.
Capital Cost: $15,000,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in the Southern Frederick area and address development to the surrounding areas.
Construction Schedule: 2013-2017
PRIORITY 7
Redbud Road Realignment
Description: Realign Redbud Road from its current location through development land
in the vicinity of Route 11 north and Snowden Bridge Boulevard.
Capital Cost: $2,500,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on
Eastern Frederick County. This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan.
Construction Schedule: TBD
42
PRIORITY 8
Warrior Drive Extension
Description: Construct a 4-lane divided roadway beginning at Route 277 where Warrior
Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south and west to intersect
with I-81 at the location of the relocated Exit 307 interchange.
Capital Cost: $23,200,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in the Southern Frederick area and address development to the surrounding areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 9
Channing Drive Extension
Description: Construct a 4-lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road where
Channing Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south to intersect
with Route 50 East at Independence Drive.
Capital Cost: $20,600,000
Justification: This project has been identified in the Eastern Road Plan, and will address
congestion in Eastern Frederick County and address development to the surrounding
areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 10
Brucetown Road/Hopewell Road Alignment and Intersection Improvements
Description: Realign Brucetown Road to meet Hopewell Road at Route 11.
Improvements to this intersection will address comprehensive planned development’s
traffic generation in the area.
Capital Cost: $3,000,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on
the Route 11 corridor. The location is identified by joint planning efforts between the
county and VDOT.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 11
Widening of Route 11 North to the West Virginia State Line
43
Description: Improve Route 11 to a divided 4 and 6-lane facility as detailed in the
Eastern Road Plan.
Capital Cost: $47,800,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
over a large area of the County and address development to the surrounding area. This
project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and improving
the flow of traffic.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 12
Senseny Road Widening
Description: Widen Senseny Road to a 4-lane divided roadway. This project is not
dependent upon, but is being coordinated with the implementation of Route 37, Channing
Drive, and development in the area.
Capital Cost: $22,800,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on
Eastern Frederick County. This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 13
Inverlee Way
Description: Construct a 4-lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road and going
south to Route 50 East. This project is being planned in conjunction with improvements
to Senseny Road and surrounding development.
Capital Cost: $10,200,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
and provide an additional needed link between Senseny Road and Route 50 East.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 14
Fox Drive
Description: Add additional turning lane(s) to Fox Drive where it intersects with Route
522 North.
Capital Cost: $250,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at this
intersection.
Construction Schedule: TBD
44
PRIORITY 15
Renaissance Drive, Phase 2
Description: Construct a connector road between Route 11 and Shady Elm Drive.
Capital Cost: $2,000,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at key
points along Route 11 and Apple Valley Dr. This project is identified in Secondary Road
Improvements Plan.
Construction Schedule: Phase I construction was recently completed.
PRIORITY 16
Frederick County Eastern Road Plan
Description: This project is intended to address all of the planned transportation
improvements in the County Comprehensive Plan, Eastern Road Plan that are not noted
individually above.
Capital Cost: $TBD
Justification: This project prepares the county for future development by addressing the
projects needed to support that development in a manner consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Construction Schedule: N/A
45
Winchester Regional Airport Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64 A 69
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 69 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a portion is
located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $235,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15
PRIORITY 2
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64 A 70, 64 A 71
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 70 and 71 on Bufflick Road. These parcels are critical to airport development because
a portion is located within or near the airport primary surf aces.
Capital Cost: $525,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15
PRIORITY 3
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64B A 40
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel
64B A 40 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a
portion is located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $175,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
46
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15
PRIORITY 4
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64B-A-51
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 49 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a portion is
located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $235,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 17+
PRIORITY 5
New General Aviation Terminal Construction
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport proposes to construct a new general
aviation terminal building. The new facility will be constructed in a new location slightly
east of the existing terminal building.
Capital Cost: $3,030,000
Justification: Since its opening in the early 1990s, the general aviation terminal building for
the Winchester Regional Airport has had only limited interior work completed. Interior
repairs are necessary due to extensive usage and some damage from water leaking from the
roof prior to its replacement in the Spring of 2006 by necessity. The heating and cooling
systems are approaching 25 years in age and are nearing the end of their useful life. The
exterior of the terminal building is made from Drivet that has failed in many areas and is
generally in fair to poor condition. In addition, the windows are not energy efficient and
several of the window seals have failed. In 2008, a study was completed to examine needs
and costs to renovate the existing terminal building. After review of the study, the WRAA
determined it would be more economical to build a new energy efficient building slightly east
of the existing terminal. The proposed location of the project will allow enough room to build
out a new transient apron during the taxiway relocation project.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 17-18
47
PRIORITY 6
Northside Connector
Description: This project proposed to construct a new taxiway connector and a short
partial parallel taxiway on the northwest side of the airfield. The connector would access
the runway at the end of Runway 14 and the parallel taxiway would connect to the
proposed apron and hangar development area on the northside of the airfield.
Capital Cost: $1,550,000
Justification: The Winchester Regional Airport has and continues to experience a
growth in business usage. Over the past several years, businesses have been operating
increasingly larger aircraft. The based aircraft accommodations on the south side of the
airport were developed over 20 years ago, before these larger aircraft were even available
to businesses. Therefore the south side was not developed to accommodate these larger
aircraft. In addition, the airport has effectively "built-out" the available space for any
aircraft hangars on the southside, requiring opening up land on the northside. These
taxiways are the first step in opening up the area.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 15-16
PRIORITY 7
New Terminal Parking lot
Description: Expand and rehabilitate the existing auto parking at the terminal building.
Capital Cost: $650,000
Justification: Portions of the existing parking lot will be removed as part of the
demolishing of the terminal building.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 17-18
PRIORITY 8
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64 A 66
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 66 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a portion is
located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $275,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 15-16
48
PRIORITY 9
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64 A 67
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 67 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a portion is
located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $275,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 15-16
PRIORITY 10
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64B A 33A
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel
64B A 33A on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a
portion is located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $175,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 15-16
PRIORITY 11
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64 A 60
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 60 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a portion is
located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $275,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
49
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 15-16
PRIORITY 12
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64 A 63
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 63 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a portion is
located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $275,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 16-17
PRIORITY 13
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64 A 64
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 64 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a portion is
located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $275,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 16-17
PRIORITY 14
Fuel Storage Facility
Description: Construction of a maintenance equipment and storage facility.
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Justification: This project is necessary to improve the conditions and the lead time
required to access the equipment in case of an emergency.
50
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 16-17
PRIORITY 15
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64 A 47
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 47 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a portion is
located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $300,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safet y on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 18-19
PRIORITY 16
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64 A 49
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 49 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a portion is
located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $300,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 18-19
PRIORITY 17
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64 A 50
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 50 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a portion is
located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $300,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
51
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 17+
PRIORITY 18
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64 A 52
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 52 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a portion is
located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $300,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 18-19
PRIORITY 19
Land Acquisition – Bufflick Road – Parcels 64 A 59
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire parcel 64
A 59 on Bufflick Road. This parcel is critical to airport development because a portion is
located within or near the airport primary surfaces.
Capital Cost: $300,000
Justification: Under the FAA part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia
15.2, the airport is required to own fee simple property located within the primary
surfaces. There are currently more than 120 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional
Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will have the benefit of increased
safety on the airport once the parcels are acquired and vertical obstructions are
minimized.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 18-19
PRIORITY 20
Northside Service Road
52
Description: This project proposes to construction a two lane service road around the
end of Runway 14. The road will be approximately 1/2 to 3/4 miles in length so that
vehicles stay clear of navigational aid critical areas. It is proposed that the road will be 2
lanes
Capital Cost: $400,000
Justification: The approved airport layout plan shows new development occurring on the
northside of the runway. By having aircraft ground operations and storage on both sides
of the airfield (north and south), ground vehicle traffic requiring access to both sides of
the airfield will be generated. The traffic will include fueling truck operations and
personnel activities for general maintenance. The FAA encourages the construction of
service roads around aircraft activity areas, especially the runways, to prevent
unauthorized ground vehicle access to aircraft movement areas and to promote a safer
operating environment. The service road, located on the west side of the airport (Runway
14 end) will accomplish these goals.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 18-19
PRIORITY 21
Taxiway (A) Relocation
Description: The relocation of Taxiway (1) is part of the overall Airport upgrade to
meet safety design standards for a Group III airport. This relocation will improve the
serviceability and safety of the Airport in regards to ground operations for larger aircraft.
Capital Cost: $9,650,000
Justification: The relocation of Taxiway (1) is necessary to increase the Airport’s ability
to accommodate larger aircraft. This project also will improve the serviceability of the
Airport in regards to ground traffic.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 19+
53
County Administration Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Albin Convenience Site Relocation
Description: The relocation of the Albin citizens’ convenience site to property located
within the Sunnyside/Albin community is planned for the FY 14/15. Design work will be
completed in FY 13/14. A fenced, two-acre site will be constructed along North
Frederick Pike on county-owned property in close proximity to the existing site located
on Indian Hollow Road, ideally on a portion of the current FCPS bus garage property.
This project will require several months to complete and include fencing, earthwork,
retaining wall, electric, equipment, lighting, paving and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $374,850
Justification: During August of 2011 a total of 13,343 residents visited the Albin
facility, according to a site survey. The refuse site serves a geographic area extending
from Sunnyside and the Cedar Creek Grade westward to Gainesboro. The total number of
vehicles using the site, an average of 513 a day, increased by 11 percent between 2008
and 2010. The latest figure represents another 24 percent increase over the previous year.
Weekends are the busiest at Albin when up to 550 residents use the facility on Saturdays.
As trash disposal and the resulting traffic continue to increase at the facility, the present
infrastructure will be unable to safely handle the burden. During the holidays, the site
requires two site attendants in order to move traffic as quickly as possible. However, lines
still back out onto Indian Hollow Road, a hazard noted several times by the Sheriff’s
Office. For residents living between Cedar Creek Grade and Apple Pie Ridge, curbside
pickup is expensive, prompting heavy utilization of the convenience center which attracts
a mix of users from the suburbs and rural community. It is also becoming obviously that
residents in the Gainesboro area are foregoing that facility in favor of the Albin location.
Transient university students from the townhouse community also utilize the recycling
facilities.
Construction Schedule: Start in FY 14-15
PRIORITY 2
Gore Refuse Site Relocation/Expansion
Description: The project will expand refuse collection capacity in the Gore community
by installing a surplus trash compactor. With the relocation of the Gainesboro and Albin
sites and purchase of new equipment, there will be an available compactor. Installation of
a compactor at Gore will drive down collection costs at the site where trash is now
collected in 10 8-yard boxes. In order to accomplish this, and account for improved
traffic flow and the construction of necessary concrete walls, the site will be expanded
onto an adjoining parcel owned by the county.
Capital Cost: $225,350
Justification: This project would also provide much-needed capacity during heavy flow
times such as weekends and holidays. All 10 containers now on site fill to capacity during
Saturday afternoons and during the Sunday shift when up to 189 vehicles visit the
54
facility. A 40-yard roll-off is placed at the site during the Christmas holidays to provide
for increased trash generation. An upgraded site would meet the future solid waste
demands of a growing community.
Construction Schedule: Start in FY 15-16
PRIORITY 3
General Government Capital Expenditures
Description: This new project consists of a revolving fund in the amount of $1,000,000
for the benefit of General Governmental Capital Expenditures. It is the intention of this
capital expenditure fund to be for the purpose of purchasing capital equipment for
governmental agencies and to allow for improvements to general governmental facilities.
Such expenditures may be less than the established $100,000 departmental threshold. It
was determined that the inclusion of such a project would be beneficial in ensuring that
this significant capital expense is identified in the County’s capital planning and budget
process. This project is for the benefit of the County Governmental Entities participating
in the CIP but does not include individual Volunteer Fire and Rescue Companies.
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Justification: The inclusion of this capital expenditure fund for the purpose of
purchasing capital equipment for governmental agencies and to allow for improvements
to general governmental facilities will enable the County to meet the requirements of the
Code of Virginia with regards to the collection and disbursement of cash proffers
accepted on behalf of the governmental entities.
Construction Schedule: N/A
PRIORITY 4
County/School Board Administration Building
Description: This new project consists of a County/School Board Administration
Building, to be located generally in the County’s Urban Development Area.
Capital Cost: TBD
Justification: The inclusion of this capital facility will allow for improvements to
general governmental facilities and services for the benefit of the residents of Frederick
County and will meet the increasing need for office space, meeting space, and
government services in an accessible location.
Construction Schedule: TBD
55
Fire & Rescue Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Fire & Rescue Station #22 / Annex Facilities (Route 277)
Description: Construct a two bay Fire and Rescue Station with satellite Sheriff’s office
and County office space for treasure, commissioner of the revenue, and BOS office with
meeting room. The station will be located in the area of Fairfax Pike, White Oak Road,
and Tasker Road to provide service for the heavy growth area east of Stephens City. An
approximate three-acre site will be needed to accommodate this facility. The fire station
will be approximately a 10,000 sq ft facility to house an engine and ambulance. Those
who would occupy the facility will determine the size of the satellite offices. This facility
is specifically identified in the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Plan
approved in 2008.
Capital Cost: $3,400,000
Justification: The development of satellite offices along major transportation networks
and in areas of dense population will provide ease of access for citizens and will improve
services to the county. This facility would facilitate the implement the Route 277
Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Plan approved in 2008. Nearby development is
scheduled to be an active adult resort gated community with age restrictions on 80% of
the homes above 55 and the other 20% above 45. The developer‘s master plan will allow
for 2130 individual dwelling units using a mix of housing types.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15
PRIORITY 2
Fire & Rescue Station #22 / Apparatus (Route 277)
Description: Purchase one (1) custom pumper equipped and one (1) custom Type I
Advanced Life Support (A.L.S.) capable ambulance equipped to be assigned to Fire and
Rescue Station 22.
Capital Cost: $905,000
Justification: This fire and rescue apparatus will be assigned to Fire and Rescue Station
22 located on Fairfax Pike East in the Stephens City area of Frederick County. The
pumper will be built to N.F.P.A. 1901 specifications and equipped with all of the required
and necessary equipment to function as a Class A Pumper. The ambulance will be built
to the Federal KKK-A-1822E specifications and equipped with all of the required and
necessary equipment to function as an Advanced Life Support ambulance. This fire and
rescue apparatus is needed due to the fact that the Fire and Rescue Department currently
owns one (1) pumper and one (1) ladder truck that are twenty (20) plus years of age and
already assigned to other functions. The currently owned fire and rescue apparatus
would not endure the demands placed on it while being assigned to a high call volume.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15
56
PRIORITY 3
Fire & Rescue Station #23 / New Facility (Crosspointe)
Description: This project consists of a 10,000 square foot fire station to accommodate 4
pieces of emergency equipment, and to house living and sleeping areas for staff. This
project could also include satellite offices for the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office,
Treasurers Office, and Commissioner of Revenue as well as a meeting room for County
Supervisor meetings with their constituents with an additional 2000 square feet of
building area. A two and ½ acre parcel should be sufficient for building, parking and
amenities for approximately 20 to 30 persons. The project is located at Crosspointe
Center at the end of current Rt.37 South, an area of proposed high density residential
development, and commercial development.
Capital Cost: $3,700,000
Justification: The proposed location at the South end of Route 37 provides for quick and
easy access to Interstate 81 North and South at the 310 Exit. Access and response on Rt.
37 will be greatly enhanced from I81 to Route 50 West in the Northbound Lane.
Currently Stephens City and Round Hill Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company’s serve the
area. This location also provides easy access to Rt.11 and the Kernstown area along with
access to Middle Road and Subdivisions of Brookneil, Stonebrook, and Jacksons Woods.
These subdivisions have large single family homes in an area of Frederick County
outside of the UDA. Water supplies are scarce in these areas and a rapid response from
this proposed facility will likely reduce property damage from fire and response times for
Medical Emergencies. Major collector roads such as Tasker Road and Warrior Drive
along with the proposed extension of Rt. 37 and new roadways in the development will
provide quick access to additional homes and businesses in areas including Front Royal
Pike, Papermill Road. These roadway construction efforts will provide for an increased
level of quality emergency service to the citizens in this entire area.
Construction Schedule: To be determined.
PRIORITY 4
Fire & Rescue Regional Training Center
Description: Construct a Regional Public Safety Training Center potentially consisting
of an administrative building, multi-story burn building, multi-story training tower,
vehicle driving range, shooting range, and numerous other training props. This project
will incorporate emergency medical services, fire, hazardous materials, rescue, law
enforcement, industrial, and educational institutions located in Clarke County, Frederick
County, Shenandoah County, Warren County, Winchester City, State Agencies, Federal
Agencies, and potentially jurisdictions within the State of West Virginia.
Capital Cost: $31,175,000
Justification: This project will facilitate realistic training in today’s modern environment
for emergency services and industrial personnel located throughout the Northern
Shenandoah Valley and expanding into the State of West Virginia. This project will
reinforce existing training programs in those respective agencies and jurisdictions as well
as facilitate training that is currently not available within the Northern Shenandoah
57
Valley which causes students and instructors to travel into the Washington Metropolitan
region. The number of potential personnel being trained at this Training Center is
potentially in the thousands based upon training statistics provided in July 2007 by the
participating agencies.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 17-18
PRIORITY 5
Fire and Rescue Station (#24) Relocation
Description: Construct a three (3) bay fire and rescue station with satellite County
Offices. This station is intended to be located on or near Redland Road in the area of
Lake Holiday either at a site provided by Lake Holiday or other tract in the vicinity. An
approximate three to four acre site is necessary for a 10,000 square foot facility, to house
a fire engine, and ambulance and rescue boat.
Capital Cost: $3,750,000
Justification: The Lake Holiday Development is scheduled to have a final build-out of
2800 single family homes.
Construction Schedule: To be determined
PRIORITY 6
Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station (#15) Relocation
Description: The new station RHCFRC plans to build will be a 17,801 sf, fully NFPA-
compliant, single-story, pre-engineered structure with 4 double drive-thru bays and 14’
clearances. The bays will take up 5,340 sf and include a turnout gear alcove for 50
lockers, laundry room, tool shop and store rooms. The bays will be able to accommodate
modern-sized apparatus, including a ladder truck, and will give the company ample room
for future expansion. The drive-thru design will reduce the possibility of backing
accidents, as well as ease the flow of apparatus into and out of the station. The bays will
be equipped with spot drains for each vehicle to minimize slip-and-fall accidents. In
2006, a site inventory by Stewart Cooper Newell Architects identified more than 10
features of RHCFRC’s station not in compliance with NFPA standards. Perhaps the most
serious is the lack of proper separation between sleeping and vehicles spaces. The men’s
bunkroom door opens directly into the bays. Combined with inadequate hazardous
exhaust controls, this creates serious safety concerns for those sleeping inside. This
facility will also be able to accommodate living and sleeping quarters. A community
center is also planned with this project and will be approximately 10,000 sq. ft.
accommodating 400 persons for holding fundraising events. The entire project will be
relocated to an area of 3 to 5 acres.
Capital Cost: $4,281,696
Justification: The operational section of RHCFRC’s present station is a brick-and-block
structure of approximately 2,277 square feet built in 1954. A wing of pre-engineered and
block construction was added in 1981 to increase office and public space. Today, the
station is no longer adequate to house the company’s 30 firefighters and 8 vehicles in a
safe and efficient manner. The operating space is unsafe and cramped, and limits the
58
services that can be provided to a growing community. First due population for the 2000
censes was 8,089. The continued growth in the area has brought additional commercial
development (Walmart, hotels, and planned development by the hospital, shopping and
restaurants). The area includes a high school and elementary school.
Construction Schedule: To be determined
PRIORITY 7
Clear Brook Fire and Rescue Station (#13) Relocation
Description: A new facility is proposed to be built on our current property, take down
the current building and extend our parking. The building is to be six (6) drive through
bays, administration, eating and sleeping facilities along with a dining hall. The
estimated size of the structure is to be approximately 28,000 square feet.
Capital Cost: $4,396,000
Justification: At the current time we have outgrown our facility and with the equipment
that we have to provide the service to our community for property and health protection
and with the staffing needs and fund raising operations our current facility is in need of
upgrading /updating.
Construction Schedule: To be determined
Fire & Rescue Company Capital Project Requests
Capital Equipment Fire & Rescue – Vehicles & Equipment
Description: This new project consists of a revolving fund in the amount of $1,000,000
for the benefit of Fire and Rescue Services. It is the intention of this capital expenditure
fund to be for the purpose of purchasing additional and replacement capital equipment
fire and rescue vehicles and equipment. It was determined that the inclusion of such a
project would be beneficial in ensuring that this significant capital expense is identified in
the County’s capital planning and budget process. This project is primarily for the
benefit of the individual Volunteer Fire and Rescue Companies.
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Justification: The inclusion of this capital expenditure fund for the purpose of
purchasing additional and replacement capital equipment fire and rescue vehicles and
equipment will enable the County to meet the requirements of the Code of Virginia with
regards to the collection and disbursement of cash proffers accepted on behalf of the fire
and rescue companies.
Construction Schedule: N/A
59
The following requests have been added to the CIP in no particular order:
Individual Fire & Rescue Company Capital Equipment Requests.
Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Company
Office and Living Quarters Project
Project Cost: $550,000
Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Company
Apparatus ventilation system project
Project Cost: $550,000
Middletown Vol. Fire & Rescue Company
Life Pack x3
Project Cost: $100,000
Middletown Vol. Fire & Rescue Company
Rescue Engine Replacement
Project Cost: $790,000
North Mountain Vol. Fire & Rescue Company
Building Expansion
Project Cost: $314,766
c
FREDERICK COUNTY GOVERNMENT SERVICES
FUTURE FOCUS
Frederick County government shall continue to provide accessible, effective, and high quality government services to its citizens, business owners, and community partners. Community facilities providing administrative and judicial services shall be located in urban areas which may include the County’s Urban Development Area, Sewer and Water
Service Area, and/or and areas identified as future Urban Centers. Advances in technology shall be embraced as a means of further advancing government services to those citizens, business owners, and community partners. In addition, a variety of communication methods shall be used to engage the community and promote the accessibility of government services. In general, the County shall strive to improve access to government services through a variety of creative and proactive approaches. This may include, but is not limited to, physically building community facilities in urban areas and those locations including the
County’s Urban Development Area, Sewer and Water Service Area, and/or areas
identified as future Urban Centers identified in the Comprehensive Plan that are highly accessible, and also through the use of technology that connects the County with the community. Projects and proposals aimed at enhancing the County’s ability to provide accessible, effective, and high quality government services, either by Frederick County or by private entities through allowable programs such as PPEA, should be considered as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the County. Such community facilities shall generally also be included in the Capital Improvement Plan. The goal of any community facility is to allow for an improvement to general governmental facilities and services for the benefit of the residents of Frederick County, meeting their increasing needs for accessible government services in appropriate locations.
POLICIES/IMPLEMENTATION
POLICY: IMPROVE SERVICES TO CITIZENS THROUGH THE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE
PROVISION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES.
IMPLEMENTATION:
• County government services, including but not limited to County and School Administration facilities, should be provided as needed to provide citizens, business owners, and community partners with accessible government services.
• Community facilities should generally be located within urban areas which may include the County’s Urban Development Area, Sewer and Water Service Area,
and/or and areas identified as future Urban Centers.
• The community facilities should further the goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan by creating community with public facilities and implementing those Neighborhood Design Principles expressed in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
• Community facilities should create a sense of community and serve as community focal points.
• Collaboration between County agencies should continue to be a priority goal in order to ensure that the investment made in the County’s community facilities will continue to provide the best possible environment for positive and vibrant community growth.
• The development of community facilities should promote a visually unified, coordinated, and identifiable area of particular significance to the community.
D
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
1
ARTICLE VII
OVE RLAY DISTRICTS
Part 7 02 - FP Floodplain Districts
§ 165 -7 02.01. Purpose. Statutory Authoriz ation and Purpose.
T his ordinanc e is adopted pursuant to the authority granted to loc alities b y V a. Code § 1 5 . 2 -2 2 8 0 .
The purpose of these provisions are to prevent the loss of life and property, the creation of health and
safety hazards, the disruption of commerce and governmental services, the extraordinary and
unnecessary expenditure of public funds for flood protection and relief, and the impairment of the tax
base by:
A.Regulating uses, activities, and development which, alone or in combination with other existing
or future uses, activities, and development, will cause unacceptable increases in flood heights,
velocities, and frequencies;
B.Restricting or prohibiting certain uses, activities, and development from locating within districts
subject to flooding;
C.Requiring all those uses, activities, and developments that do occur in flood-prone districts to be
protected and/or flood-proofed against flooding and flood damage; and,
D.Protecting individuals from buying land and structures which are unsuited for intended purposes
because of flood hazards.
§ 165 -7 02.02. Applicability.
These provisions shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of Frederick County and identified as
being in the 100-year floodplain by the Federal Insurance Administration. Privately and pub lic ly ow ned
lands w ithin the j urisdic tion of F rederic k County and identified as areas of spec ial flood haz ard
ac c ording to the flood insuranc e rate map ( F I R M ) that is provided to F rederic k County b y F E M A.
§ 165 -7 02.03. Compliance and Liability.
A.No land shall hereafter be developed and no structure shall be located, relocated, constructed,
reconstructed, enlarged, or structurally altered except in full compliance with the terms and
provisions of this chapter and any other applicable regulations which apply to uses within the
jurisdiction of this chapter.
B.The degree of flood protection sought by the provisions of this chapter is considered reasonable
for regulatory purposes and is based on acceptable engineering methods of study. Larger floods
may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes,
such as ice jams and bridge openings restricted by debris. This chapter does not imply that
districts outside the floodplain district, or that land uses permitted within such district, will be
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
2
free from flooding or flood damages.
C.Records of actions associated with administering this chapter shall be kept on file and
maintained by the Frederick County Zoning Administrator.
D.This chapter shall not create liability on the part of Frederick County or any officer or employee
thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative
decision lawfully made thereunder.
§ 165 -7 02.04. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions.
This chapter supersedes any ordinance currently in effect in flood-prone districts. However, any
underlying ordinance shall remain in full force and effect to the extent that its provisions are more
restrictive than this chapter.
§ 165 -7 02.05 . Severability.
If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter shall be declared invalid
for any reason whatever, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this chapter. The
remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect; and for this purpose, the provisions of this
chapter are hereby declared to be severable.
§ 1 6 5 -7 0 2 . 0 6 . Administration.
A. D esignation of the F loodplain Administrator. T he Z oning Administrator is hereb y appointed to
administer and implement these regulations and is referred to herein as the F loodplain
Administrator. T he F loodplain Administrator may :
( 1 ) D o the w ork themselves. I n the ab senc e of a designated F loodplain Administrator, the
duties are c onduc ted b y the F rederic k County Planning D irec tor.
( 2 ) D elegate duties and responsib ilities set forth in these regulations to q ualified tec hnic al
personnel, plan ex aminers, inspec tors, and other employ ees.
( 3 ) E nter into a w ritten agreement or w ritten c ontrac t w ith another loc ality or private sec tor
entity to administer spec ific provisions of these regulations. Administration of any part of
these regulations b y another entity shall not relieve the County of its responsib ilities
pursuant to the partic ipation req uirements of the N ational F lood I nsuranc e Program as set
forth in the Code of F ederal R egulations at 4 4 C. F . R . Sec tion 5 9 . 2 2 .
B. D uties and R esponsib ilities of the F loodplain Administrator. T he duties and responsib ilities of
the F loodplain Administrator shall inc lude b ut are not limited to:
( 1 ) R eview applic ations for permits to determine w hether proposed ac tivities w ill b e loc ated in
the Spec ial F lood H az ard Area ( SF H A) .
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
3
( 2 ) I nterpret floodplain b oundaries and provide availab le b ase flood elevation and flood
haz ard information.
( 3 ) R eview applic ations to determine w hether proposed ac tivities w ill b e reasonab ly safe from
flooding and req uire new c onstruc tion and sub stantial improvements to meet the
req uirements of these regulations.
( 4 ) R eview applic ations to determine w hether all nec essary permits have b een ob tained from
the F ederal, State or loc al agenc ies from w hic h prior or c onc urrent approval is req uired; in
partic ular, permits from state agenc ies for any c onstruc tion, rec onstruc tion, repair, or
alteration of a dam, reservoir, or w aterw ay ob struc tion ( inc luding b ridges, c ulverts,
struc tures), any alteration of a w aterc ourse, or any c hange of the c ourse, c urrent, or c ross
sec tion of a stream or b ody of w ater, inc luding any c hange to the 1 0 0 -y ear freq uenc y
floodplain of free-flow ing non-tidal w aters of the State.
( 5 ) V erify that applic ants proposing an alteration of a w aterc ourse have notified adj ac ent
c ommunities, the D epartment of Conservation and R ec reation ( D ivision of D am Safety and
F loodplain M anagement) , and other appropriate agenc ies ( V AD E Q , U S Army Corps of
E ngineers) and have sub mitted c opies of suc h notific ations to F E M A.
( 6 ) Advise applic ants for new c onstruc tion or sub stantial improvement of struc tures that are
loc ated w ithin an area of the Coastal Barrier R esourc es Sy stem estab lished b y the Coastal
Barrier R esourc es Ac t that F ederal flood insuranc e is not availab le on suc h struc tures;
areas sub j ec t to this limitation are show n on F lood I nsuranc e R ate M aps as Coastal Barrier
R esourc e Sy stem Areas ( CBR S) or Otherw ise Protec ted Areas ( OPA) .
( 7 ) Approve applic ations and issue permits to develop in flood haz ard areas if the provisions of
these regulations have b een met, or disapprove applic ations if the provisions of these
regulations have not b een met.
( 8 ) I nspec t or c ause to b e inspec ted, b uildings, struc tures, and other development for w hic h
permits have b een issued to determine c omplianc e w ith these regulations or to determine
if non-c omplianc e has oc c urred or violations have b een c ommitted.
( 9 ) R eview E levation Certific ates and req uire inc omplete or defic ient c ertific ates to b e
c orrec ted.
(1 0 ) Sub mit to F E M A, or req uire applic ants to sub mit to F E M A, data and information nec essary
to maintain F I R M s, inc luding hy drologic and hy draulic engineering analy ses prepared b y
or for F rederic k County , w ithin six months after suc h data and information b ec omes
availab le if the analy ses indic ate c hanges in b ase flood elevations.
(1 1 ) M aintain and permanently k eep rec ords that are nec essary for the administration of
these regulations, inc luding:
( a) F lood I nsuranc e Studies, F lood I nsuranc e R ate M aps ( inc luding historic studies and
maps and c urrent effec tive studies and maps) and L etters of M ap Change; and
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
4
( b ) D oc umentation supporting issuanc e and denial of permits, E levation Certific ates,
doc umentation of the elevation ( in relation to the datum on the F I R M ) to w hic h
struc tures have b een floodproofed, other req uired design c ertific ations, varianc es,
and rec ords of enforc ement ac tions tak en to c orrec t violations of these regulations.
(1 2 ) E nforc e the provisions of these regulations, investigate violations, issue notic es of
violations or stop w ork orders, and req uire permit holders to tak e c orrec tive ac tion.
( 1 3 ) Advise the Board of Z oning Appeals regarding the intent of these regulations and, for
eac h applic ation for a varianc e, prepare a staff report and rec ommendation.
(1 4 ) Administer the req uirements related to proposed w ork on ex isting b uildings:
( a) M ak e determinations as to w hether b uildings and struc tures that are loc ated in
spec ial flood haz ard areas and that are damaged b y any c ause have b een
sub stantially damaged.
( b ) M ak e reasonab le efforts to notify ow ners of sub stantially damaged struc tures of the
need to ob tain a permit to repair, rehab ilitate, or rec onstruc t, and prohib it the non-
c ompliant repair of sub stantially damaged b uildings ex c ept for temporary emergenc y
protec tive measures nec essary to sec ure a property or stab iliz e a b uilding or struc ture
to prevent additional damage.
(1 5 ) U ndertak e, as determined appropriate b y the F loodplain Administrator due to the
c irc umstanc es, other ac tions w hic h may inc lude b ut are not limited to: issuing press
releases, pub lic servic e announc ements, and other pub lic information materials related to
permit req uests and repair of damaged struc tures; c oordinating w ith other F ederal,
State, and loc al agenc ies to assist w ith sub stantial damage determinations; providing
ow ners of damaged struc tures information related to the proper repair of damaged
struc tures in spec ial flood haz ard areas; and assisting property ow ners w ith
doc umentation nec essary to file c laims for I nc reased Cost of Complianc e c overage under
N F I P flood insuranc e polic ies.
(1 6 ) N otify the F ederal E mergenc y M anagement Agenc y w hen the b oundaries of F rederic k
County have b een modified and:
( a) Provide a map that c learly delineates the new c orporate b oundaries or the new area
for w hic h the authority to regulate pursuant to these regulations has either b een
assumed or relinq uished through annex ation; and
( b ) I f the F I R M for any annex ed area inc ludes spec ial flood haz ard areas that have flood
z ones that have regulatory req uirements that are not set forth in these regulations,
prepare amendments to these regulations to adopt the F I R M and appropriate
req uirements, and sub mit the amendments to the governing b ody for adoption; suc h
adoption shall tak e plac e at the same time as or prior to the date of annex ation and a
c opy of the amended regulations shall b e provided to D epartment of Conservation and
R ec reation ( D ivision of D am Safety and F loodplain M anagement) and F E M A.
(1 7 ) U pon the req uest of F E M A, c omplete and sub mit a report c onc erning partic ipation in the
N F I P w hic h may req uest information regarding the numb er of b uildings in the SF H A,
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
5
numb er of permits issued for development in the SF H A, and numb er of varianc es issued
for development in the SF H A.
(1 8 ) I t is the duty of the F loodplain Administrator to tak e into ac c ount flood, mudslide and
flood-related erosion haz ards, to the ex tent that they are k now n, in all offic ial ac tions
relating to land management and use throughout the entire j urisdic tional area of the
County , w hether or not those haz ards have b een spec ific ally delineated geographic ally
( e. g. via mapping or survey ing) .
C. U se and I nterpretation of F I R M s. T he F loodplain Administrator shall mak e interpretations,
w here needed, as to the ex ac t loc ation of spec ial flood haz ard areas, floodplain b oundaries,
and floodw ay b oundaries. T he follow ing shall apply to the use and interpretation of F I R M s
and data:
( 1 ) W here field survey ed topography indic ates that adj ac ent ground elevations:
( a) Are b elow the b ase flood elevation, even in areas not delineated as a spec ial flood
haz ard area on the F I R M , the area shall b e c onsidered as spec ial flood haz ard area
and sub j ec t to the req uirements of these regulations;
( b ) Are ab ove the b ase flood elevation, the area shall b e regulated as spec ial flood haz ard
area, if so indic ated on the F I R M , unless the applic ant ob tains a L etter of M ap Change
that removes the area from the SF H A.
( 2 ) I n F E M A-identified spec ial flood haz ard areas w here b ase flood elevation and floodw ay
data have not b een identified and in areas w here F E M A has not identified SF H As, any
other flood haz ard data availab le from a F ederal, State, or other sourc e shall b e review ed
and reasonab ly used.
( 3 ) Base flood elevations and designated floodw ay b oundaries on F I R M s and in F lood
I nsuranc e Studies shall tak e prec edenc e over b ase flood elevations and floodw ay
b oundaries b y any other sourc es if suc h sourc es show reduc ed floodw ay w idths and/or
low er b ase flood elevations.
( 4 ) Other sourc es of data shall b e reasonab ly used if suc h sourc es show inc reased b ase flood
elevations and/or larger floodw ay areas than are show n on F I R M s and in F lood I nsuranc e
Studies.
( 5 ) I f a Preliminary F lood I nsuranc e R ate M ap and/or a Preliminary F lood I nsuranc e Study has
b een provided b y F E M A:
( a) U pon the issuanc e of a L etter of F inal D etermination b y F E M A, the preliminary flood
haz ard data shall b e used and shall replac e the flood haz ard data previously provided
from F E M A for the purposes of administering these regulations.
( b ) Prior to the issuanc e of a L etter of F inal D etermination b y F E M A, the use of
preliminary flood haz ard data shall b e deemed the b est availab le data pursuant to §
1 6 5 -7 0 2 . 0 6 and used w here no b ase flood elevations and/or floodw ay areas are
provided on the effec tive F I R M .
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
6
( 3 ) Prior to issuanc e of a L etter of F inal D etermination b y F E M A, the use of preliminary
flood haz ard data is permitted w here the preliminary b ase flood elevations or
floodw ay areas ex c eed the b ase flood elevations and/or designated floodw ay w idths
in ex isting flood haz ard data provided b y F E M A. Suc h preliminary data may b e
sub j ec t to c hange and/or appeal to F E M A.
§ 1 6 5 -7 0 2 . 0 7 . J urisdic tional Boundary Changes.
I n ac c ordanc e w ith the Code of F ederal R egulations, T itle 4 4 , Part 5 9 , Sub part B, Sec tion 5 9 . 2 2 ( a) ( 9 )
( v), all N F I P partic ipating c ommunities must notify the F ederal I nsuranc e Administration E mergenc y
M anagement Agenc y and optionally the State Coordinating Offic e V irginia D epartment of
Conservation and R ec reation - D ivision of D am Safety and F loodplain M anagement in w riting
w henever the b oundaries of the County have b een modified b y annex ation or the County has
otherw ise assumed or no longer has authority to adopt and enforc e floodplain management
regulations for a partic ular area.
I n order that all F lood I nsuranc e R ate M aps ac c urately represent the County ’ s b oundaries, a c opy of a
map of the County suitab le for reproduc tion, c learly delineating the new c orporate limits or new area
for w hic h the County has assumed or relinq uished floodplain management regulatory authority must
b e inc luded w ith the notific ation.
§ 1 6 5 -7 0 2 . 0 8 . Sub mitting T ec hnic al D ata.
T he County ’ s b ase flood elevations may inc rease or dec rease resulting from phy sic al c hanges affec ting
flooding c onditions. As soon as prac tic ab le, b ut not later than six months after the date suc h
information b ec omes availab le, the County shall notify the F ederal E mergenc y M anagement Agenc y
of the c hanges b y sub mitting tec hnic al or sc ientific data. Suc h a sub mission is nec essary so that upon
c onfirmation of those phy sic al c hanges affec ting flooding c onditions, risk premium rates and flood
plain management req uirements w ill b e b ased upon c urrent data.
§ 165 -7 02.060 9 . Description of Special F lood H az ard Districts.
A. Basis of districts. The various flood haz ard floodplain districts shall include areas subject to
inundation by waters of the one-hundred-year flood the Spec ial F lood H az ard Areas. The basis
for the delineation of these districts shall be the F lood insuranc e Study and the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRM) for Frederick County prepared by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Insurance Administration, dated September 2, 2009, as amended. T he b oundaries of
the Spec ial F lood H az ard Areas are estab lished as show n on the F I R M w hic h is dec lared to b e a
part of this artic le and w hic h shall b e k ept on file at the F rederic k County D epartment of
Planning and D evelopment.
(1) The Floodway District is in an AE Z one delineated for purposes of this article using the
criteria that certain areas within the floodplain must be capable of carrying the waters
of the one perc ent annual c hanc e flood one-hundred (100)-year flood without
increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than one (1) foot at any point.
The areas included in this District are specifically defined in Table 2 of the above-
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
7
referenced Flood Insurance Study and shown on the accompanying Flood Boundary and
Floodway Map or Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
(2)The Special Floodplain District shall be those areas identified as an AE Zone on the maps
accompanying the Flood Insurance Study for which one hundred (100)-year flood
elevations have been provided. The basis for the outermost boundary of this district
shall be the one-hundred-year flood elevations contained in the flood profiles of the
above-referenced Flood Insurance Study and shown on the accompanying Flood
Insurance Rate Maps.
(3) The Approximated Floodplain District shall be those areas identified as an A Zone on the
maps accompanying the Flood Insurance Studies. In these zones, no detailed flood
profiles or elevations are provided, but the one hundred (100)-year floodplain boundary
has been approximated.
( i)T he follow ing provisions shall apply w ithin the F loodw ay D istric t of an AE z one:
a. W ithin any floodw ay area, no enc roac hments, inc luding fill, new
c onstruc tion, sub stantial improvements, or other development shall b e
permitted unless it has b een demonstrated through hy drologic and hy draulic
analy sis performed in ac c ordanc e w ith standard engineering prac tic e that
the proposed enc roac hment w ill not result in any inc rease in flood levels
w ithin the County during the oc c urrenc e of the b ase flood disc harge.
H y drologic and hy draulic analy ses shall b e undertak en only b y professional
engineers or others of demonstrated q ualific ations, w ho shall c ertify that the
tec hnic al methods used c orrec tly reflec t c urrently -ac c epted tec hnic al
c onc epts. Studies, analy ses, c omputations, etc . , shall b e sub mitted in
suffic ient detail to allow a thorough review b y the F loodplain Administrator.
D evelopment ac tivities w hic h inc rease the w ater surfac e elevation of the
b ase flood may b e allow ed, provided that the applic ant first applies – w ith
F rederic k County ’ s endorsement – for a Conditional L etter of M ap R evision
( CL OM R ) , and rec eives the approval of the F ederal E mergenc y M anagement
Agenc y .
I f § 165 -7 02.0 9 is satisfied, all new c onstruc tion and sub stantial
improvements shall c omply w ith all applic ab le flood haz ard reduc tion
provisions of § 1 6 5 -7 0 2 . 1 3 through 1 6 5 - 7 0 2 . 1 7 .
b . T he plac ement of manufac tured homes ( mob ile homes) is prohib ited, ex c ept
in an ex isting manufac tured home ( mob ile home) park or sub division. A
replac ement manufac tured home may b e plac ed on a lot in an ex isting
manufac tured home park or sub division provided the anc horing, elevation,
and enc roac hment standards are met.
( 2 ) T he AE , or AH Z ones on the F I R M ac c ompany ing the F I S shall b e those areas for w hic h
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
8
one-perc ent annual c hanc e flood elevations have b een provided and the floodw ay
has not b een delineated. T he follow ing provisions shall apply w ithin an AE or AH
z one:
U ntil a regulatory floodw ay is designated, no new c onstruc tion, sub stantial
improvements, or other development ( inc luding fill) shall b e permitted w ithin the
areas of spec ial flood haz ard, designated as Z ones A1 -3 0 and AE or AH on the F I R M ,
unless it is demonstrated that the c umulative effec t of the proposed development,
w hen c omb ined w ith all other ex isting and antic ipated development, w ill not inc rease
the w ater surfac e elevation of the b ase flood more than one foot at any point w ithin
F rederic k County .
D evelopment ac tivities in Z ones A1 -3 0 and AE or AH , on the F rederic k County F I R M
w hic h inc rease the w ater surfac e elevation of the b ase flood b y more than one foot
may b e allow ed, provided that the applic ant first applies – w ith F rederic k County ’ s
endorsement – for a Conditional L etter of M ap R evision, and rec eives the approval of
the F ederal E mergenc y M anagement Agenc y .
( 3 ) T he A Z one on the F I R M ac c ompany ing the F I S shall b e those areas for w hic h no
detailed flood profiles or elevations are provided, b ut the one perc ent annual c hanc e
floodplain b oundary has b een approx imated. F or these areas, the follow ing
provisions shall apply :
T he Approx imated F loodplain D istric t shall b e that floodplain area for w hic h no
detailed flood profiles or elevations are provided, b ut w here a one hundred ( 1 0 0 )-
y ear floodplain b oundary has b een approx imated. Suc h areas are show n as Z one A on
the maps ac c ompany ing the F I S. F or these areas, the b ase flood elevations and
floodw ay information from federal, state, and other ac c eptab le sourc es shall b e used,
w hen availab le. W here the spec ific one perc ent annual c hanc e flood elevation c annot
b e determined for this area using other sourc es of data, suc h as the U . S. Army Corps
of E ngineers F loodplain I nformation R eports, U . S. Geologic al Survey F lood-Prone
Q uadrangles, etc . , then the applic ant for the proposed use, development and/or
ac tivity shall determine this b ase flood elevation. F or development proposed in the
approx imate floodplain the applic ant must use tec hnic al methods that c orrec tly
reflec t c urrently ac c epted non-detailed tec hnic al c onc epts, suc h as point on b oundary ,
high w ater mark s, or detailed methodologies hy drologic and hy draulic analy ses.
Studies, analy ses, c omputations, etc . , shall b e sub mitted in suffic ient detail to allow a
thorough review b y the F loodplain Administrator.
T he F loodplain Administrator reserves the right to req uire a hy drologic and hy draulic
analy sis for any development. W hen suc h b ase flood elevation data is utiliz ed, the
low est floor shall b e elevated to or ab ove the b ase flood level no low er than one ( 1 )
foot ab ove the b ase flood elevation.
D uring the permitting proc ess, the F loodplain Administrator shall ob tain:
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
9
1 )T he elevation of the low est floor ( inc luding the b asement) of all new and
sub stantially improved struc tures; and,
2 )if the struc ture has b een flood-proofed in ac c ordanc e w ith the req uirements of this
artic le, the elevation ( in relation to mean sea level) to w hic h the struc ture has
b een flood-proofed.
Base flood elevation data shall b e ob tained from other sourc es or developed using
detailed methodologies c omparab le to those c ontained in a F I S for sub division proposals
and other proposed development proposals ( inc luding manufac tured home park s and
sub divisions) that ex c eed fifty lots or five ac res, w hic hever is the lesser.
( 4 ) T he AO Z one on the F I R M ac c ompany ing the F I S shall b e those areas of shallow
flooding identified as AO on the F I R M . F or these areas, the follow ing provisions shall
apply :
a.All new c onstruc tion and sub stantial improvements of residential struc tures shall
have the low est floor, inc luding b asement, elevated to or ab ove the flood depth
spec ified on the F I R M , ab ove the highest adj ac ent grade at least as high as the
depth numb er spec ified in feet on the F I R M . I f no flood depth numb er is spec ified,
the low est floor, inc luding b asement, shall b e elevated no less than tw o feet
ab ove the highest adj ac ent grade.
b .All new c onstruc tion and sub stantial improvements of non-residential struc tures
shall:
1 )H ave the low est floor, inc luding b asement, elevated to or ab ove the flood
depth spec ified on the F I R M , ab ove the highest adj ac ent grade at least as
high as the depth numb er spec ified in feet on the F I R M . I f no flood depth
numb er is spec ified, the low est floor, inc luding b asement, shall b e elevated at
least tw o feet ab ove the highest adj ac ent grade; or,
2 )T ogether w ith attendant utility and sanitary fac ilities b e c ompletely flood-
proofed to the spec ified flood level so that any spac e b elow that level is
w atertight w ith w alls sub stantially impermeab le to the passage of w ater and
w ith struc tural c omponents having the c apab ility of resisting hy drostatic and
hy drody namic loads and effec ts of b uoy anc y .
c .Adeq uate drainage paths around struc tures on slopes shall b e provided to guide
floodw aters around and aw ay from proposed struc tures.
B. Overlay concept.
(1) The Floodplain Districts described above shall be overlays to the existing underlying
districts as shown on the Official Zoning Ordinance Maps, and as such, the provisions
for the floodplain districts shall serve as a supplement to the underlying district
provisions.
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
10
(2) Where there happens to be any conflict between the provisions or requirements
of any of the Floodplain Districts and those of any underlying district, those pertaining
to the floodplain districts shall apply.
(3) In the event that any provision concerning a floodplain district is declared inapplicable
as a result of any legislative or administrative actions or judicial discretion, the basic
underlying district provisions shall remain applicable.
§ 165 -7 02.07 1 0 . Flood Insurance Rate Map.
The boundaries of the Special Flood Hazard Area and Floodplain Districts are established as shown on
the Flood Insurance Rate Map, which are by reference made a part of this chapter and which shall be
kept on file at the Frederick County offices.
§ 165 -7 02.08 1 1 . District boundary changes.
The delineation of any of the floodplain districts may be revised by Frederick County where natural or
man-made changes have occurred and/or more detailed studies conducted or undertaken by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified agency or individual documenting the necessity for
such change. However, prior to any such change, approval must be obtained from the Federal Insurance
Administration E mergenc y M anagement Agenc y .
§ 165 -7 02.09 1 2 . Interpretation of District Boundaries.
Initial interpretations of the boundaries of the Floodplain Districts shall be made by the Zoning
Administrator. Should a dispute arise concerning the boundaries of any of the Districts, the Board of
Zoning Appeals shall make the necessary determination. The person questioning or contesting the
location of the District boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case to the
Board and to submit his own technical evidence if he so desires.
§ 165 -7 02.10 1 3 . Permit and Application Req uirements.
A.Permit Requirement. All development and/or construction activities occurring within any
floodplain district shall be undertaken only upon the issuance of a permit. Such development
and/or construction activities shall be undertaken only in strict compliance with the provisions
of this chapter and with all other applicable codes and regulations, as amended, such as the
Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (VA USBC), the Frederick County Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances and the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. Prior to the issuance
of any such permit, the Zoning Administrator shall require all applications to include compliance
with all applicable state and federal laws. Under no circumstances shall any use, activity,
development and/or construction activities adversely affect the capacity of the channels or
floodways of any watercourse, drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system.
1.In circumstances where a permit is not required, all development and/or construction
activities occurring within any floodplain district shall be undertaken only upon approval by
the Zoning Administrator.
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
11
B.Alteration or Relocation of a Watercourse. Prior to any proposed alteration or relocation of any
channel or of any watercourse within this jurisdiction, a permit shall be obtained from the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and the Virginia
Marine Resources Commission (a joint permit application is available from any one of these
organizations). Further notification of the proposal shall be given to all adjacent jurisdictions,
the Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management (Department of Conservation and
Recreation), and the Federal Insurance Administration.
C.B. Site Plans and Permit Applications. All applications for development within any floodplain
district and all building permits issued for the floodplain shall incorporate the following
information:
1.The elevation of the Base Flood at the site.
2.The elevation of the lowest floor (including basement).
3.For structures to be flood-proofed (non-residential only), the elevation to which the
structure will be flood-proofed.
4.The elevation of the one-hundred-year flood.
5.Topographic information showing existing and proposed ground elevations.
§ 165 -7 02.11 1 4 .General Standards for all Special Flood Haz ard Areas.
In all special flood hazard areas The following provisions shall apply to all permits:
A.New construction and substantial improvements shall be according to the VA USBC, and
anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure.
B.Manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement.
Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to
ground anchors. This standard shall be in addition to and consistent with applicable state
requirements for resisting wind forces.
C.New construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility
equipment resistant to flood damage.
D.New construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices
that minimize flood damage.
E.Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment and other service facilities,
including duct work, shall be designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or
accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding.
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
12
F.New and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the system.
G.New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters.
H.On-site waste disposal systems shall be located and constructed to avoid impairment to them or
contamination from them during flooding.
I n addition to provisions A – H ab ove, in all spec ial flood haz ard areas, the additional
provisions shall apply :
I.Any alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvements to a building that is in compliance with
the provisions of this chapter shall meet the requirements of “new construction” as contained in
this chapter.
J.I . Any alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvements to a building that is not in compliance
with the provisions of this chapter, shall be undertaken only if said non-conformity is not
furthered, extended, or replaced sub j ec t to the sub stantial improvement provision in 1 6 5 -
7 0 2 . 1 9 C.
K.J . Prior to any proposed alteration or relocation of any channels or of any watercourse, stream,
etc., within this jurisdiction, a permit shall be obtained from the U. S. Corps of Engineers, the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.
Furthermore, notification of the proposal shall be given by the applicant to all affected adjacent
jurisdictions, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (Division of Dam Safety and
Floodplain Management) and the Federal Insurance Administration E mergenc y M anagement
Agenc y .
L.The flood carrying capacity within an altered or relocated portion of any watercourse shall be
maintained.
§ 165 -7 02.12 1 5 .Specific E levation and Construc tion Standards.
In all special flood hazard areas where base flood elevations have been provided in the Flood Insurance
Study or generated b y a c ertified professional according to §165-702.13A 0 6 , the following provisions
shall apply:
A.Residential Construction
New construction or substantial improvement of any residential structure (including
manufactured homes) shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated no lower than
one (1) foot above the base flood elevation.
B.Non-Residential Construction
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
13
New construction or substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or non-residential
building (or manufactured home) shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to no
lower than one (1) foot above the base flood elevation. Buildings located in all A, and AE zones
may be flood-proofed in lieu of being elevated provided that all areas of the building
components below the elevation corresponding to the BFE plus one foot are water tight with
walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and use structural components having
the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effect of buoyancy. A
registered professional engineer or architect shall certify that the standards of this subsection
are satisfied.
C.Elevated Buildings Spac e Below the L ow est F loor
Enclosed areas, of new construction or substantially improved structures, which are below the
regulatory flood protection elevation shall: I n z ones A, AE , AH , AO, and A1 -A3 0 , fully enc losed
areas, of new c onstruc tion or sub stantially improved struc tures, w hic h are b elow the
regulatory flood protec tion elevation shall:
1.Not be designed or used for human habitation, but shall only be used for parking of vehicles,
building access, or limited storage of maintenance equipment used in connection with the
premises. Access to the enclosed area shall be the minimum necessary to allow for parking
of vehicles (garage door) or limited storage of maintenance equipment (standard exterior
door), or entry to the living area (stairway or elevator).
2.Be constructed entirely of flood resistant materials below the regulatory flood protection
elevation;
3.Include, in Zones A, AO, and AE, measures to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces
on walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. To meet this requirement, the
openings must either be certified by a professional engineer or architect or meet the
following minimum design criteria:
a.Provide a minimum of two openings on different sides of each enclosed area subject to
flooding.
b.The total net area of all openings must be at least one (1) square inch for each square
foot of enclosed area subject to flooding.
c.If a building has more than one enclosed area, each area must have openings to allow
floodwaters to automatically enter and exit.
d.The bottom of all required openings shall be no higher than one (1) foot above the
adjacent grade.
e.Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other opening coverings or devices,
provided they permit the automatic flow of floodwaters in both directions.
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
14
f.Foundation enclosures made of flexible skirting are not considered enclosures for
regulatory purposes, and, therefore, do not require openings. Masonry or wood
underpinning, regardless of structural status, is considered an enclosure and requires
openings as outlined above.
D.Standards for Manufactured Homes and Recreational Vehicles
1.All manufactured homes placed, or substantially improved, on individual lots or parcels, in
expansions to existing manufactured home parks or subdivisions, in a new manufactured
home park or subdivision or in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which
a manufactured home has incurred substantial damage as the result of a flood, must meet
all the requirements for new construction, including the elevation and anchoring
requirements in § 165-702.14A through B, and § 165-702.15A.
2.All manufactured homes placed or substantially improved in an existing manufactured home
park or subdivision in which a manufactured home has not incurred substantial damage as
the result of a flood shall elevated so that either
a.The lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated no lower than one (1) foot
above the base flood elevation; or
b.The manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation
elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in height above
grade
c.And be securely anchored to the adequately anchored foundation system to resist
flotation, collapse and lateral movement.
3.All recreational vehicles placed on sites must either:
a.be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days;
b.be fully licensed and ready for highway use (a recreational vehicle is ready for highway
use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick
disconnect type utilities and security devices and has no permanently attached
additions); or,
c.Meet all the requirements for manufactured homes in § 165-702.12D.
§ 165 -7 02.13. Standards for the Floodway District.
The following provisions shall apply within the Floodway District:
A.Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements or other development,
shall be prohibited unless certification (with supporting technical data) by a registered professional
engineer is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood
levels during occurrence of the base flood.
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
15
1.Development activities which increase the water surface elevation of the base flood may be
allowed, provided that the developer first applies, with the Frederick County’s endorsement,
for a conditional Flood Insurance Rate Map and floodway revision, and receives the approval
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The following uses shall also be permitted
in the Floodway District:
i.Agricultural uses, such as general farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries,
horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming and wild crop harvesting.
ii.Public and private recreational uses and activities, such as parks, day camps, picnic
grounds, golf courses, boat launching and swimming areas, hiking and horseback
riding trails, wildlife and natural preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, trap and
skeet game ranges and hunting and fishing areas.
iii.Accessory residential uses, such as yard areas, gardens, play areas and pervious
loading areas.
B.If Section § 165-702.15A is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall
comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of this chapter.
C.The placement of manufactured homes (mobile homes) is prohibited, except in an existing
manufactured home (mobile home) park or subdivision. A replacement manufactured home may
be placed on a lot in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision provided the anchoring,
elevation, and encroachment standards are met.
D.In the Floodway District, a conditional use permit shall be required for accessory industrial and
commercial uses, such as yard areas, pervious parking and loading areas, airport landing strips and
other similar uses and activities, provided that they cause no increase in flood heights and/or
velocities. All uses, activities and structural developments shall be undertaken in strict compliance
with the floodproofing provisions contained in all other applicable codes and regulations.
§ 165 -7 02.14. Standards for the Special Floodplain District.
The following provisions shall apply within the Special Floodplain District:
Until a regulatory floodway is designated, no new construction, substantial improvements, or other
development (including fill) shall be permitted within the areas of special flood hazard, designated as
Zones A and AE on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of
the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development will not
increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within Frederick
County.
Development activities in Zones A and AE, on the Frederick County Flood Insurance Rate Map which
increase the water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one foot may be allowed, provided
that the developer or applicant first applies, with Frederick County’s endorsement, for a conditional
Flood Insurance Rate Map revision, and receives the approval of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
§ 165 -7 02.15 . Standards for Approx imated Floodplain District.
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
16
The following provisions shall apply with the Approximate Floodplain District:
A.The Approximated Floodplain District shall be that floodplain area for which no detailed flood
profiles or elevations are provided, but where a one hundred (100)-year floodplain boundary has
been approximated. Such areas are shown as Zone A on the maps accompanying the Flood
Insurance Study. For these areas, the one hundred (100)-year flood elevations and floodway
information from federal, state, and other acceptable sources shall be used, when available. Where
the specific one hundred (100)-year flood elevation cannot be determined for this area using other
sources of data, such as the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Floodplain Information Reports, U. S.
Geological Survey Flood-Prone Quadrangles, etc., then the applicant for the proposed use,
development and/or activity shall determine this elevation in accordance with hydrologic and
hydraulic engineering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by
professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the technical
methods used correctly reflect currently-accepted technical concepts. Studies, analyses,
computations, etc., shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the
Frederick County Engineer.
B.When such base flood elevation data is utilized, the lowest floor shall be one (1) foot above the base
flood elevation. During the permitting process, the developer or applicant shall obtain:
3)The elevation of the lowest floor (including the basement) of all new and substantially improved
structures; and,
4)If the structure has been flood-proofed in accordance with the requirements of this article, the
elevation to which the structure has been flood-proofed.
§ 165 -7 02.16 . Standards for Subdivision Proposals.
A.All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage;
B.All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and
water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage;
C.All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood
hazards.
D .I n A Z ones, Base flood elevation data shall b e ob tained from other sourc es or developed using
detailed methodologies, hy draulic and hy drologic analy sis, c omparab le to those c ontained in a
F lood I nsuranc e Study for sub division proposals and other proposed development proposals
( inc luding manufac tured home park s and sub divisions) that ex c eed fifty lots or five ac res,
w hic hever is the lesser.
§ 165 -7 02.17 . Design criteria for utilities and facilities.
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
17
A. New sanitary sewer facilities and private package sewage treatment plants (including all
pumping stations and collector systems) are prohibited in the Special Flood Hazard Areas and
Floodplain Districts.
B. Replacement sanitary sewer facilities and private package sewer treatment plants (including all
pumping stations and collector systems) shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration
of floodwaters into the systems and discharges from the systems into the floodwaters. In
addition, they should be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage and
impairment.
C. All new or replacement water facilities shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of
floodwaters into the systems and be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood
damages.
D. All storm drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the flow of surface waters without
damage to persons or property. The systems shall ensure drainage away from building and on-
site waste disposal sites. The Board of Supervisors may require a primarily underground system
to accommodate frequent floods and a secondary surface system to accommodate larger, less
frequent floods. Drainage plans shall be consistent with local and regional drainage plans. The
facilities shall be designed to prevent the discharge of excess runoff onto adjacent properties.
E. All utilities, such as gaslines, electrical and telephone systems, being placed in flood-prone areas
should be elevated (where possible) and constructed to minimize the change of impairment
during a flooding occurrence.
§ 165 -7 02.18. Factors to be considered in granting variances.
A. V arianc es shall b e issued only upon ( i) a show ing of good and suffic ient c ause, ( ii) after the
Board of Z oning Appeals has determined that failure to grant the varianc e w ould result in
ex c eptional hardship to the applic ant, and ( iii) after the Board of Z oning Appeals has
determined that the granting of suc h varianc e w ill not result in ( a) unac c eptab le or prohib ited
inc reases in flood heights, ( b ) additional threats to pub lic safety , ( c ) ex traordinary pub lic
ex pense; and w ill not ( d) c reate nuisanc es, ( e) c ause fraud or vic timiz ation of the pub lic , or ( f)
c onflic t w ith loc al law s or ordinanc es.
B. W hile the granting of varianc es generally is limited to a lot siz e less than one-half ac re,
deviations from that limitation may oc c ur. H ow ever, as the lot siz e inc reases b ey ond one-half
ac re, the tec hnic al j ustific ation req uired for issuing a varianc e inc reases. V arianc es may b e
issued b y the Board of Z oning Appeals for new c onstruc tion and sub stantial improvements to
b e erec ted on a lot of one-half ac re or less in siz e c ontiguous to and surrounded b y lots w ith
ex isting struc tures c onstruc ted b elow the b ase flood level, in c onformanc e w ith the provisions
of this sec tion.
C. V arianc es may b e issued for new c onstruc tion and sub stantial improvements and for other
development nec essary for the c onduc t of a func tionally dependent use provided that the
c riteria of this sec tion are met, and the struc ture or other development is protec ted b y
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
18
methods that minimiz e flood damages during the b ase flood and c reate no additional threats
to pub lic safety .
D. In passing upon applications for variances, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall satisfy all relevant
factors and procedures specified in other sections of this chapter and consider the following
additional factors:
(1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused
by encroachments. No variance shall be granted for any proposed use, development or
activity within any Floodway District that will cause any increase in the one-hundred-
year flood elevation.
(2) The danger that materials may be swept on to other lands or downstream to the injury
of others.
(3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to
prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions.
(4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the
effect of such damage on the individual owners.
(5) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the County.
(6) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location.
(7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use.
(8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development
anticipated in the foreseeable future.
(9) The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and floodplain
management program for the area.
(10) The safety of access by ordinary and emergency vehicles to the property in time of
flood.
(11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the
floodwaters expected at the site.
(12) The repair or rehabilitation of historic structures upon a determination that the
proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure’s continued designation
as an historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the
historic character and design of the structure.
(13) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this article.
E. The Board of Zoning Appeals may refer any application and accompanying documentation
pertaining to any request for a variance to the County Engineer for technical assistance in
evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities, and the adequacy of
the plans for flood protection and other related matters.
F. Variances shall be issued only after the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the
granting of such will not result in unacceptable or prohibited increases in flood heights,
additional threats to public safety or extraordinary public expense; and will not create
nuisances, cause fraud or victimization of the public or conflict with local laws or ordinances.
G. Variances shall be issued only after the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the
variance will be the minimum required to provide relief.
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
19
H. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall notify the applicant for a variance, in writing, that the
issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the one-hundred-year flood elevation
increases the risks to life and property and will result in increased premium rates for flood
insurance.
I. A record shall be maintained of the above notification as well as all variance actions, including
justification for the issuance of the variances. Any variances which are issued shall be noted in
the annual or biennial report submitted to the Federal Insurance Administrator.
§ 165 -7 02.19 . E x isting Structures in Floodplain Areas.
A structure or use of a structure or premises which lawfully existed before the enactment of these
provisions, but which is not in conformity with these provisions, may be continued subject to the
following conditions:
A.Existing structures in the Floodway Area shall not be expanded or enlarged unless it has been
demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with
standard engineering practices that the proposed expansion would not result in any increase in
the base flood elevation.
B.Any modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure
and/or use located in any flood plain areas to an extent or amount of less than fifty (50) percent
of its market value shall conform to the VA USBC.
C.The modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure
and/or use, regardless of its location in a floodplain area to an extent or amount of fifty (50)
percent or more of its market value shall be undertaken only in full compliance with this
chapter and shall require the entire structure to conform to the VA USBC.
§ 165 -7 02.20. Penalties for Violations.
A.Any person who fails to comply with any of the requirements or provisions of this article or
directions of the Zoning Administrator or any authorized employee of Frederick County shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties outlined in § 165-101.08 of this Chapter.
T he V A U SBC addresses b uilding c ode violations and the assoc iated penalties in Sec tion 1 0 4
and Sec tion 1 1 5 .
B.In addition to the above penalties, all other actions are hereby reserved, including an action in
equity for the proper enforcement of this article. The imposition of a fine or penalty for any
violation of, or noncompliance with, this article shall not excuse the violation or noncompliance
or permit it to continue; and all such persons shall be required to correct or remedy such
violations or noncompliances within a reasonable time. Any structure constructed,
reconstructed, enlarged, altered or relocated in noncompliance with this article may be declared
by Frederick County to be a public nuisance and abated as such. Flood insurance may be
withheld from structures constructed in violation of this article.
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
20
ARTICLE I
GE NE RAL PROVISIONS, AME NDME NTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PE RMITS
Part 101 – General Provisions
§165 -101.02. Definitions and word usage.
BASE FLOOD - The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) – The Federal Emergency Management Agency designated one-hundred-year
surface water elevation.
BASEMENT - Any area of the building having its floor sub-grade (below ground level) on all sides.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - A Board whose members are appointed by the Circuit Court for the express
purpose of considering and acting on variances and zoning appeals.
DEVELOPMENT - Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to
buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or
storage of equipment or materials.
ELEVATED BUILDING - A non-basement building built to have the lowest floor elevated above the ground level
by means of fill, solid foundation perimeter walls, pilings, or columns (posts and piers).
ENCROACHMENT - With respect to a floodplain an encroachment shall be the advance or infringement of uses,
plant growth, fill, excavation, buildings, permanent structures or development into a floodplain, which may
impede or alter the flow capacity of a floodplain.
E X I ST I N G CON ST R U CT I ON - struc tures for w hic h the “ start of c onstruc tion” c ommenc ed b efore the effec tive
date of the F I R M or b efore J anuary 1 , 1 9 7 5 for F I R M s effec tive b efore that date. “ E x isting c onstruc tion” may
also b e referred to as “ ex isting struc tures. ”
EX ISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION - A manufactured home park or subdivision for
which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed
(including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or
the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of the floodplain management regulations
adopted by the County .
EX PANSION TO AN EX ISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION - The preparation of additional
sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufacturing homes are to be affixed
(including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of
concrete pads).
FLOOD OR FLOODING
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
21
1.A general or temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from:
a.the overflow of inland or tidal waters; or,
b. the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source.
c .mudflow s w hic h are prox imately c aused b y flooding as defined in paragraph ( 1 ) ( b ) of this
definition and are ak in to a river of liq uid and flow ing mud on the surfac es of normally dry land
areas, as w hen earth is c arried b y a c urrent of w ater and deposited along the path of the c urrent.
2.The collapse or subsistence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion
or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly
caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water, accompanied by a severe storm, or
by an unanticipated force of nature such as flash flood or an abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly
unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding as defined in paragraph 1 (a) of this
definition.
3.Mudflows which are proximately caused by flooding as defined in paragraph 1 and 2 of this definition
and are akin to a river of liquid and flowing mud on the surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when
earth is carried by a current of water and deposited along the path of the current.
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) – An official map of the County on which the F loodplain Administrator has
delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the County .
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY (FIS) – An examination, evaluation and determination of flood hazards and, if
appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations, or an examination, evaluation and determination of
mudflow and/or flood-related erosion hazards.
FLOODPLAIN OR FLOOD-PRONE AREA - Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source.
FLOODPROOFING – Any combination of structural and non-structural additions, changes, or adjustments to
structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary
facilities, structures and their contents.
FLOODWAY - The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in
order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a
designated height.
FREEBOARD - A factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a flood level for purposes of floodplain
management. “Freeboard” tends to compensate for the many unknown factors that could contribute to flood
heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size flood and floodway conditions, such as wave
action, bridge openings, and the hydrological effect of urbanization in the watershed.
HIGHEST ADJACENT GRADE – The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to
the proposed walls of a structure.
HISTORIC STRUCTURE - Any structure that is:
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
22
1.listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of
Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for
individual listing on the National Register;
2.certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical
significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify
as a registered historic district;
3.individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which
have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior; or,
4.individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs
that have been certified either:
a.by an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior; or,
b.directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs.
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Engineering Analysis – Analyses performed by a licensed professional engineer, in
accordance with standard engineering practices that are accepted by the Virginia Department of Conservation
and Recreation and FEMA, used to determine the base flood, other frequency floods, flood elevations, floodway
information and boundaries, and flood profiles.
L E T T E R S OF M AP CH AN GE ( L OM C) - A L etter of M ap Change is an offic ial F E M A determination, b y letter, that
amends or revises an effec tive F lood I nsuranc e R ate M ap or F lood I nsuranc e Study . L etters of M ap Change
inc lude:
•L E T T E R OF M AP AM E N D M E N T ( L OM A) : An amendment b ased on tec hnic al data show ing that
a property w as inc orrec tly inc luded in a designated spec ial flood haz ard area. A L OM A amends
the c urrent effec tive F lood I nsuranc e R ate M ap and estab lishes that a L and as defined b y
meets and b ounds or struc ture is not loc ated in a spec ial flood haz ard area.
•L E T T E R OF M AP R E V I SI ON ( L OM R ) : A revision b ased on tec hnic al data that may show c hanges
to flood z ones, flood elevations, floodplain and floodw ay delineations, and planimetric
features. A L etter of M ap R evision Based on F ill ( L OM R -F ) , is a determination that a struc ture
or parc el of land has b een elevated b y fill ab ove the b ase flood elevation and is, therefore, no
longer ex posed to flooding assoc iated w ith the b ase flood. I n order to q ualify for this
determination, the fill must have b een permitted and plac ed in ac c ordanc e w ith the County ’ s
floodplain management regulations.
•CON D I T I ON AL L E T T E R OF M AP R E V I SI ON ( CL OM R ) : A formal review and c omment as to
w hether a proposed flood protec tion proj ec t or other proj ec t c omplies w ith the minimum N F I P
req uirements for suc h proj ec ts w ith respec t to delineation of spec ial flood haz ard areas. A
CL OM R does not revise the effec tive F lood I nsuranc e R ate M ap or F lood I nsuranc e Study .
LOWEST FLOOR - The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood-
resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a
basement area is not considered a building’s lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
23
render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of Federal Code 44CFR
§ 60.3.
MOBILE OR MANUFACTURED HOME – A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in travel mode
is eight body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is 320 or more
square feet and which is built in a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a
permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities.
MOBILE OR MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION - A parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land or a
subdivision divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
NEW CONSTRUCTION - For the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for which the “start of
construction” commenced on or after the effective date of an initial Flood Insurance Rate Map on or after
December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For
floodplain management purposes, new construction means structures for which start of construction
commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by the County and
includes any subsequent improvements to such structures.
NEW MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION - A manufactured home park or subdivision for which the
construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a
minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of
concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of floodplain management regulations adopted by the
County .
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE - A vehicle which is:
A. Built on a single chassis;
B. Four hundred square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection;
C. Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light-duty truck; and
D. Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational
camping, travel or seasonal use.
Repetitive Loss Structure – A building covered by a contract for flood insurance that has incurred flood-related
damages on two occasions during a 10-year period ending on the date of the event for which a second claim is
made, in which the cost of repairing the flood damage, on the average, equaled or exceeded 25 percent of the
market value of the building at the time of each flood event.
Shallow flooding area – A special flood hazard area with base flood depths from one to three feet where a
clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate, and
where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow.
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA - The land in the floodplain subject to a one (1% ) percent or greater chance of
being flooded in any given year as determined in § 165-702.1 0 .
START OF CONSTRUCTION - The date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction,
repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, substantial improvement or other improvement was
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
24
within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction
of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of
columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a
foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor
does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as
dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of the
construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether
or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building.
STRUCTURE – For floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid
storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home. Structure, for insurance rating
purposes, means a walled and roofed building, other than a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above
ground and affixed to a permanent site, as well as a manufactured home on a permanent foundation. For the
latter purpose, the term includes a building while in the course of construction, alteration or repair, but does not
include building materials or supplies intended for use in such construction, alteration or repair, unless such
materials or supplies are within an enclosed building on the premises.
SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE - Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the
structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50% of the market value of the structure
before the damage occurred.
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT - Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition or other improvement of a structure,
the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of
the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred substantial damage regardless of the actual
repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either any project for improvement of a structure
to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary or safety code specifications which have been
identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living
conditions or any alteration of an historic structure, provided that the alteration will not preclude the structures
continued designation as an historic structure.
1. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health,
sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official
and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or
2. Any alteration of a historic structure, provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s
continued designation as a historic structure.
3 . H istoric struc tures undergoing repair or rehab ilitation that w ould c onstitute a sub stantial
improvement as defined ab ove, must c omply w ith all ordinanc e req uirements that do not prec lude the
struc ture’ s c ontinued designation as a historic struc ture. D oc umentation that a spec ific ordinanc e
req uirement w ill c ause removal of the struc ture from the N ational R egister of H istoric Plac es or the
State I nventory of H istoric plac es must b e ob tained from the Sec retary of the I nterior or the State
H istoric Preservation Offic er. Any ex emption from ordinanc e req uirements w ill b e the minimum
nec essary to preserve the historic c harac ter and design of the struc ture.
DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT
25
VIOLATION - For floodplain management purposes, violation includes the failure of a structure or other
development to be fully compliant with the County ' s flood plain management regulations. A structure or other
development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in
this ordinance is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided.
WATERCOURSE - A lake, river, creek, stream, wash, channel or other topographic feature on or over which
waters flow at least periodically. Watercourse includes specifically designated areas in which substantial flood
damage may occur.
E
2014 Frederick County Planning Commission Annual Retreat
Meeting Summary Notes
Holiday Inn
333 Front Royal Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Meeting Attendees:
Planning Commissioners Present: June Wilmot, Chairman, Member at Large; Greg Unger, Back
Creek District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Paige Manual, Shawnee District; Larry
Ambrogi, Shawnee District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Stan Crockett, Stonewall District;
Charlie Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kevin Kenny, Gainesboro District
Board of Supervisors Present: Christopher Collins, Red Bud District; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.,
Stonewall District; Robert Hess, Gainesboro District; and Gary Lofton, Back Creek District
Other Guests/Attendees: Robert Molden
Planning Staff Present: Eric Lawrence, Director; Mike Ruddy, Deputy Director-Land Use; John
Bishop, Deputy Director-Transportation; Candice Perkins, Senior Planner; Mark Cheran, Zoning
Administrator; David Burke, Zoning Inspector; Lindsey D. Felton, GIS Analyst
2014 PC Retreat Summary
February 8, 2014
2 | Page
Improving the Planning Commission’s Business
Overview:
The role of the Planning Commission is multifaceted; they listen, learn, recommend, deny and
approve various plans, regulations, and applications associated with development in Frederick
County. The Planning Commission leads the county effort in drafting policies and ordinances
that guide and regulate development. The Planning Commission reviews development
proposals and applications, weighs the product against adopted policies and ordinances, listens
to the community, and ultimately forwards a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
The Planning Commission strives to continuously make informed decisions and
recommendations, and its ability to communicate is a key aspect that leads to informed
decision making.
The session was presented in 5 sections - Materials for Preparation and Knowledge, Meeting
Thoughts; Committees / Work Groups; Commissioner / Board Member Communication; and
PC Missioner Statement.
The first section Materials for Preparation and Knowledge offered an overview of the Planner’s
responsibilities, as detailed in the Planning Commissioners Handbook (reading material
distributed with the Retreat Agenda). Key points included:
• Chapter 2 - What is this Business called Planning?
• Planning is a Rational means of managing change
• Planning is Protection of values and resources
• Planning is Promotion of economic development
• Planning is Advancing public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens
• Planning is Implementing the desires of the Citizens and Taxpayers
• Planning is Legislative and Administrative duties
• Planning is Visions and Laws
• Chapter 3 – The Job of a Planner
o Study and Recommend changes for consideration by Board of
Supervisors
o Comprehensive Plan
o Implementation of Plan (rezoning)
o Develop Z/S Ordinances to support the Comprehensive Plan
o Implementation of ZO/SO
o Liaisons between citizens and elected Board of Supervisors
o Listen and recommend
o Apolitical; bridge gap between citizens and Board
o Ethics / Conflicts of Interest
o Elected officials weigh PC recommendations, and vis-versa.
o Must always perform duties without conflict.
2014 PC Retreat Summary
February 8, 2014
3 | Page
o Gain/earn/maintain the public’s trust.
o Use the Bylaws / Roles and Responsibilities.
• Chapter 5 – Guide to Defensible Planning
o Meet. Community, open, public hearings, etc.
o Open decision making enables all to see, learn, understand, and
….support.
o Provide foundation for actions.
o Act based on information heard/shared at open meetings.
o Express findings and conclusions.
o Recommend approval because….
o Recommend denial because…..
o Example (additionally need to include project specifics):
• A favorable motion could read : “ Move the Commission
forward RZ# to the Board recommending approval because
the use, as proposed, should not adversely affect the health,
safety, or welfare of residents and workers in the
neighborhood nor be injurious to adjacent properties or
improvements in the neighborhood.
• An unfavorable recommendation from the PC to Board should
cite the reasons why the proposal as submitted or modified
could negatively impact the health, safety or welfare of those
residing or working in the area
o Use the Checklist from the PC Handbook, Chapter 5, Page 9
The second session was Meeting Thoughts. Questions Posed: How might meetings and staff
reports be improved to assist the public, Commission, and Board to arrive at effective
decisions?
• Improve the flow of the staff report to ease the effort of identifying the “key issues”?
• Meeting Agenda Format Discussion (Agenda layout has changed in recent years, did you
know that?)
• Difference between Action item and Public Hearing? Answer: While both can result in
action only the public hearing item is a legally required public hearing. Without a
required Public Hearing, an item does not necessarily receive public comments during a
Planning Commission meeting. The agenda change is meant to cut down on public
confusion concerning when the public may speak and where the Commission acts.
• Perhaps show public hearing items again in action item? May add further clarity.
Resolution may be the use of a heading Public Hearing/Action. Addition of a brief
explanation may be useful. Addition of glossary of terms would help people.
• Responsibility to the public includes engaging them and furthering their understanding.
Add-ons to agenda must be done with caution.
2014 PC Retreat Summary
February 8, 2014
4 | Page
• Need to more clearly summarize what has taken place from application, through PC, and
on to the Board.
• Not necessarily looking for entire history, but a clear recommendation backed by key
points of consideration.
• Perhaps an executive summary with full staff report as appendix
• In full staff report more details on what is being proposed. What is going where in
terms of the development?
• Perhaps some thought to what the Board may need that PC may not. Differences in
depth of information or how it is presented.
• Board hopes to get staff and PC recommendations, but also ‘the why?’, the ‘reasons
behind’ those recommendations.
• PC not looking for a recommendation to approve or deny, but would like the backing
points for either motion. i.e., draft motion for approval and denial.
• Key issue is a thorough vetting as the issue makes its way to the Board. Note that one
size does not fit all.
• When items come back from the Board to PC it is very important that guidance by the
Board be provided.
• Important to express thoughts publicly so that others (PC, Board, and public) might
learn from you, share in your thoughts.
• More attention and consideration of detail when limiting details of CUP applications.
Make sure limitations are well grounded and make sense for the use and location.
Context is very helpful. Site details and who is suggesting the limitation and why are
important details.
• Important to maintain an understanding of the differences between a CUP applicant
who is typically a small business person and the more savvy rezoning applicants with
engineers and representation. We need to make sure we are helping them out.
Meeting Thoughts section conclusions:
1. Create a glossary of terms page that is included with meeting agendas. (as a minimum
define “Public Hearing”, “Action Items”, and Commission Discussions”. Probably include
“UDA”, “SWSA”, and other common planning terms )
2. Revise Staff reports so that executive summaries are condensed to the cover page.
a. Include application request and clear staff recommendations.
b. Replace staff recommendation with PC recommendation for the Board staff
report.
3. Continue to maintain thorough staff reports for background information, capturing
review agency comments and reiterations.
4. Provide motions for approval and denial of applications.
5. Provide details for how one arrives at CUP conditions.
2014 PC Retreat Summary
February 8, 2014
5 | Page
The third session was Committees / Work Groups. Questions Posed: How might we improve
our recruitment of members to Committees and Work Groups, sharing of their discussions and
recommendations?
• Committee and Work Groups should have meeting summaries that are shared with PC
and Board. Offers additional background on efforts and foundations of
recommendations
• Continue to use all available resources and technology to maintain open lines of
communication, open process. Continue to utilize and implement Communication Plan
from 2011
• Improving communication is an ongoing theme and effort for the department
• Greater use of social media, but put links out to primary information sources as opposed
to spending time reproducing information
Committee / Work Group section conclusions:
1. Distribute Committee and Work Group meeting minutes to PC and Board; possibly in
the format of a Committee report memorandum on the PC agenda.
2. Include Committee and Work Group meeting minutes with associated products as such
advance through PC and Board
3. Recruit members from those participating at public meetings – if interested enough to
participate, they are expressing interest in their community.
The fourth session was Commissioner / Board Member Communication. Questions Posed:
What are strengths and weaknesses? Improvable areas? Liaison reports? Conveyance of
Recommendations/format?
• Board members noted that all that is needed is a phone call or to reach out.
• What communication is particularly helpful?
• PC member calls to the Board
• Some members meet quarterly for lunch or on an as needed basis
• Is communication guided by agendas or just general?
• Greater use of Liaison reports, perhaps a PC liaison report to the Board. Maybe
redundant?
• Good decision making benefits from sharing information.
• More information in Friday mailings and include PC in those reports.
• Increase distribution of items instead of just to the reps of that Magisterial district
Commissioner / Board Member Communication section conclusion
1. Create a Board liaison report to the PC (verbal delivery of key Board discussions/actions
that may affect/be of interest to the Planning Commission)
2. Distribute the development application action summaries to all PC and Board members
2014 PC Retreat Summary
February 8, 2014
6 | Page
3. Distribute the proposed 6 week meeting agenda schedule to all PC and Board members
The fifth session was Planning Commission Mission Statement. Question Posed: The Planning
Commission does not have a Mission Statement. Should a Mission Statement crafted and
adopted?
• PC currently has no formal mission statement
• Some potential language has been drafted for consideration.
• Make sure it addresses the role as identified in the enabling legislation.
• Potential mission statements:
o The mission of the Frederick County Planning Commission is to investigate,
coordinate, and administer all matters that have direct and/or indirect impact
upon Frederick County so as to maintain the highest quality of life for its
inhabitants, maintain a balance between urban and rural areas, and meet the
needs of the County’s present population without compromising the needs of
future generations.
o To inform and provide services in support of the short and long term
comprehensive planning, quality of life, environment, and economic development
of Frederick County.
o To enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Frederick County by providing a
Commission which encourages quality growth, development and the stabilization
of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls,
Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement.
o It is the mission of the Planning Commission to fairly and impartially represent
the citizens of the Frederick County on all planning issues brought before the
commission; and in so doing apply all applicable laws, policies, ordinances,
municipal codes and existing Comprehensive Plan conditions to decisions and
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors (preference indicated at retreat).
o Serves the County and its communities by helping them to achieve a better future
through the preparation and administration of land use plans and regulations
and by supporting conforming development proposals.
Planning Commission Mission Statement Conclusion:
1. PC should discuss further
2. Commission expressed interest in adopting a mission statement, but formal action yet
to be taken
2014 PC Retreat Summary
February 8, 2014
7 | Page
Planning Activities in 2013; Projects for 2014
Overview:
This session offered an overview of the more significant planning and development activities of
the past year, a planning project that is still in the development stage, and a window into
activities the Planning Commission will see in 2014. The Planning Commission had an
opportunity to identify additional planning projects to be undertaken in 2014.
The session was presented in 3 sections – 2013 Annual Report summary, UDA Centers, and
proposed 2014 Work Program.
The first section, 2013 Annual Report summary, offered a brief overview of the
accomplishments of the Planning Department in 2013. It was noted that development
application review has increased when compared to the past few calendar years. It was also
noted that new residential construction has increased by 31 percent over the past year, and
that with 371 new residential building permits being issued the county is seeing growth similar
to that of 2007/2008 era. It was noted that over 65 percent of new residential construction
occurred within the UDA.
The second section, UDA Centers, recapped the growth trend that young professionals and the
maturing population continue to look for new living accommodations within our community.
The revised language strives to address how the center concepts would benefit existing
members of the community looking for new “living, working, and playing” accommodations.
The area’s younger population is transitioning from education to the workforce, and are
seeking affordable rental housing with good walkability to places of work and play. Similarly,
the area’s maturing population is seeking to downsize from the rural and suburban parts of the
county, and move into rental, low maintenance accommodations with access to shopping and
medical facilities. The concept of the UDA Centers would offer yet another option for their
consideration.
Comments received during the retreat included:
• UDA Center concepts are identified in the 2030 Plan, but details of the Centers are
included in current study.
• Note was made that more work sessions may not be needed without board direction on
actionable items
• It was noted that the County isn’t the one building the centers, but that interest has
been expressed by the development community. Important to get community
acceptable concepts in plans and ordinances, to enable developers to advance their
business models.
2014 PC Retreat Summary
February 8, 2014
8 | Page
• It was noted that often the creation of the development opportunity is the most critical
step, and therefore acceptable concepts should be enabled by the local plans and
ordinances.
• This is an opportunity to “get it right, now”. Let community/county decide the future,
as opposed to waiting for a developer to tell the county what to do.
• R4 was in the ordinance for 20 years before being implemented. Much easier to make
adjustments to an ordinance than to create one from scratch to accommodate a
proposal.
• Young people looking for higher end employment opportunities. So we must plan for all
aspects of the cycle – housing to capture worker, worker to capture interests of
employers, employers to create demand for housing.
• Board guidance will be important in determining the next steps.
The third section, proposed 2014 Work Program, offered an overview of the projects the
Planning Department would undertake in 2014. The Department is prepared to undertake a
long-range planning project, a current planning project, a transportation planning project, and
an administrative project during the ensuing year. These projects are typically accomplished
through the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC), the Development Review
and Regulations Committee (DRRC), and the Transportation Committee (TC). We would
anticipate significant progress, if not completion, of the top projects for each of the planning
programs - Long Range and Current – during the 2014 calendar year.
Proposed Long Range Planning projects
• Southern Frederick Area Plan (on-going)
• Finalize the development of the Urban Center design plans (on-going)
• Kernstown Area Plan
• Develop rural village plans
o Gainesboro Rural Village
o Albin Rural Village
• Evaluate and implement Affordable / Workforce Housing initiatives
Proposed Current and Future Planning projects
• Continued development of the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) District.
• Review and Align the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances with the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan.
• LEED – Green standards implementation.
• Evaluate changes to the outdoor screening requirements within industrial parks.
• Review the commercial telecommunication tower polices.
2014 PC Retreat Summary
February 8, 2014
9 | Page
• Evaluate and enhance the business and industrial districts to promote County economic
development strategies and opportunities and to address design elements.
• Develop design standards for commercial corridors within the county, primarily those
leading into the City of Winchester.
• Develop a process and standards for the implementation of proportional site
development improvements.
• New Residential District to implement the Round Hill Land Use Plan.
• Develop a new residential district for the Rural Community Centers (RCC’s).
• Revised Homeowner’s association ordinance.
• Evaluate the merits of a Wind Farm ordinance.
• Evaluate and implement Affordable / Workforce Housing initiatives.
Comments regarding Current and Future projects:
• TDR Ordinance
• 4-5 landowners in the UDA own most of the property that is undeveloped and are not
expressing interest in developing. Consider using TDRs to turn on commercial and
industrial land uses outside of the UDA but inside the SWSA
• Ordinance Development
• Are wind farms realistic? Maybe not but there may still be need of ordinance to deal
with smaller uses.
• Clarify difference between rural community centers
• Revisions to homeowners association ordinance?
• Inadequate text and making sure the ordinance is actually effective. Problems have
taken place particularly at handover time.
• Take a look at existing HOA’s, particularly with private roadways
TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn PPllaannnniinngg PPrroojjeeccttss
• Further the planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of Route 37.
• Ongoing monitoring and review of Route 37 right-of-way needs to include research of
opportunities to preserve right of way while working with property owners to allow
development.
• Investigate creation of a quantitative process for project priority setting.
• Update of Eastern Road Plan.
• Create a listing of County’s top areas of safety concerns based upon accident rates.
• Data gathering and maintenance efforts.
• The ability to conduct or cause to be conducted a number of data gathering efforts on
an as needed basis would be very beneficial to the transportation planning process in
the County. While staff currently tries to maximize outside resources, such as the
2014 PC Retreat Summary
February 8, 2014
10 | Page
Metropolitan Planning Organization and VDOT to get needed data, not all needs are
met.
Other Comments – should bring closure to Middletown area projects: SWSA at LFCC and
other areas north of Middletown, and BLA with the Reliance Road area east of
Middletown.